People on the right are swooning while leftists' heads are exploding over the Supreme Court's decision to allow full enforcement of Trump's travel ban. It's an enjoyable moment, to be sure, but I see no cause for celebration. For one, this order is temporary and does nothing to prevent the ongoing challenges wending their way through the lower federal courts. An even more fundamental problem is that no court has any business second-guessing a ban of this nature. No foreigner has a "right" to enter this country; we can ban entry to all foreigners, or ban entry to some foreigners rather than others (as we have done on various occasions in the past).
There is no true victory when a court happens to exercise excessive power in one's favor. The very exercise of such power is a transgression, and the power to give implies the power to take away. By celebrating this ruling today, the people on the right are tacitly conceding that they will submit to a contrary ruling tomorrow.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Roy Moore In The Crosshairs Because He Threatens The Establishment
Alabama's candidate for U.S. Senate, Roy Moore, has been hit with 11th-hour accusations that he got fresh with teenage girls at some point in the distant past. I have no idea whether the accusations are true, but I do know that they pale in comparison to what popular men such as Bill Clinton or JFK are confirmed to have done, and I also know that the establishment hates Roy Moore because he defied an imperial judicial decree on the basis that it violates the Constitution (a heroic concept in these degraded times).
I wrote about Moore's heroism in my first book Unlawful Government: Preserving America In A Post-Constitutional Age, as follows (footnotes and endnotes removed):
On November 13, 2003, a nine-member panel of judges voted unanimously to remove Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore from his post for violating the Canon of Judicial Ethics. Had he accepted bribes? Had he made political speeches about cases under his review? Or had he engaged in secret communications with a particular side to a legal dispute, as had U.S. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter in Brown v. Board of Education? No. According to the panel, he had done something far worse: he had refused to obey a federal court injunction ordering him to remove a stone rendering of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. This despite the panel’s own opening prayer that day, not to mention the prominent presence of the Ten Commandments at the United States Supreme Court itself. The Kafkaesque ordeal in which Justice Moore found himself had originated with the twisted jurisprudence surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment that makes no mention of church and state.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment had ever come into existence, some States went so far as to establish official churches – an order of magnitude more serious than placing mere religious monuments on public property. No court dreamed of interfering in these activities because nothing in the Constitution prohibits them, and States enjoy the right to do anything not specifically prohibited in the Constitution’s few pages. To be sure, the federal government could not establish a church, since the federal government can do only that which the Constitution allows, and no enumerated power authorizes a national church. The First Amendment serves as a reminder of this inherent limitation of the federal government by cautioning that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” Nothing in the First Amendment curtails the power of the States to involve themselves in religious activity, and when the Fourteenth Amendment was debated and passed in 1868, no one treated it as changing that state of affairs.
So how did it come to pass that the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment got applied to the States at all? To put it bluntly, the Supreme Court just decided to do it. This first occurred in 1947, when the Court reviewed a New Jersey law that reimbursed parents for the cost of sending their children to parochial schools on public-school buses. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court analyze how or why the eighty-year-old Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment relevant. Instead, the Court simply declared it to be so and launched into a flowery paean to the Founding Fathers and religious diversity. Although the Court ultimately upheld the law, the Court had presumptuously asserted the ability to examine such arrangements through the lens of the First Amendment’s “establishment clause.”
After crossing that Rubicon, the Court grew more brazen. In 1948 the Court struck down an Illinois school board’s practice of allowing students to attend sectarian classes located in public schools and taught by parochial instructors. In 1962 the Court prohibited New York public-school officials from leading students in a daily recital of a non-denominational prayer. Even when an activity was not “coerced” by school officials, the Court nevertheless intervened. For example, in 1985 the Court nullified an Alabama law allowing schools to set aside one minute each day for students to engage in “meditation and voluntary prayer.” The Court later prohibited the reading of a non-sectarian prayer at a middle-school graduation – where no student participation was required – on the basis that some students might feel marginalized.
Apart from the school context (where feelings of exclusion had assumed full status as constitutional determinants), the Court showcased its prowess for secularizing general public activities as well. This came to the fore in 1989 with two apparently contradictory decisions arising from the same case. First the Court found it improper for a Catholic organization to place a nativity scene on the steps of a county courthouse. In the same breath, though, the Court allowed a menorah to be displayed at a city-county building. The stated rationale for banning the nativity scene was that “nothing in the context of the display detracts from the crèche’s religious message.” With the menorah, however, the “religious message” of the display was sufficiently watered-down with secular symbols to suit the Court’s taste: “the relevant question [is] whether the combined display of the tree, the sign [saluting liberty], and the menorah has the effect of endorsing both Christian and Jewish faiths, or rather simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society. [The] latter seems for more plausible . . . .”
So this is the path we have trod: from a Constitution that places no bar on States’ involvement in religion, to a Court that decides in its own infinite wisdom what comprises “too much” religion for display in the public sphere. Roy Moore found himself at the wrong end of that path, but not because he had lost his way. Those who dominate America’s political and judicial firmament detest religion, not only because it would acquaint them with the concept of shame, but also because of its respect for an authority that transcends any earthly source such as their own sorry selves. Roy Moore reminded them that America was founded with a view to that higher authority, and that they, not he, were in the wrong. Having stood up for justice despite little chance of victory, Roy Moore achieved greater honor than those Lilliputians judging him can ever aspire to.
I wrote about Moore's heroism in my first book Unlawful Government: Preserving America In A Post-Constitutional Age, as follows (footnotes and endnotes removed):
On November 13, 2003, a nine-member panel of judges voted unanimously to remove Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore from his post for violating the Canon of Judicial Ethics. Had he accepted bribes? Had he made political speeches about cases under his review? Or had he engaged in secret communications with a particular side to a legal dispute, as had U.S. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter in Brown v. Board of Education? No. According to the panel, he had done something far worse: he had refused to obey a federal court injunction ordering him to remove a stone rendering of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. This despite the panel’s own opening prayer that day, not to mention the prominent presence of the Ten Commandments at the United States Supreme Court itself. The Kafkaesque ordeal in which Justice Moore found himself had originated with the twisted jurisprudence surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment that makes no mention of church and state.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment had ever come into existence, some States went so far as to establish official churches – an order of magnitude more serious than placing mere religious monuments on public property. No court dreamed of interfering in these activities because nothing in the Constitution prohibits them, and States enjoy the right to do anything not specifically prohibited in the Constitution’s few pages. To be sure, the federal government could not establish a church, since the federal government can do only that which the Constitution allows, and no enumerated power authorizes a national church. The First Amendment serves as a reminder of this inherent limitation of the federal government by cautioning that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” Nothing in the First Amendment curtails the power of the States to involve themselves in religious activity, and when the Fourteenth Amendment was debated and passed in 1868, no one treated it as changing that state of affairs.
So how did it come to pass that the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment got applied to the States at all? To put it bluntly, the Supreme Court just decided to do it. This first occurred in 1947, when the Court reviewed a New Jersey law that reimbursed parents for the cost of sending their children to parochial schools on public-school buses. Nowhere in the opinion did the Court analyze how or why the eighty-year-old Fourteenth Amendment made the First Amendment relevant. Instead, the Court simply declared it to be so and launched into a flowery paean to the Founding Fathers and religious diversity. Although the Court ultimately upheld the law, the Court had presumptuously asserted the ability to examine such arrangements through the lens of the First Amendment’s “establishment clause.”
After crossing that Rubicon, the Court grew more brazen. In 1948 the Court struck down an Illinois school board’s practice of allowing students to attend sectarian classes located in public schools and taught by parochial instructors. In 1962 the Court prohibited New York public-school officials from leading students in a daily recital of a non-denominational prayer. Even when an activity was not “coerced” by school officials, the Court nevertheless intervened. For example, in 1985 the Court nullified an Alabama law allowing schools to set aside one minute each day for students to engage in “meditation and voluntary prayer.” The Court later prohibited the reading of a non-sectarian prayer at a middle-school graduation – where no student participation was required – on the basis that some students might feel marginalized.
Apart from the school context (where feelings of exclusion had assumed full status as constitutional determinants), the Court showcased its prowess for secularizing general public activities as well. This came to the fore in 1989 with two apparently contradictory decisions arising from the same case. First the Court found it improper for a Catholic organization to place a nativity scene on the steps of a county courthouse. In the same breath, though, the Court allowed a menorah to be displayed at a city-county building. The stated rationale for banning the nativity scene was that “nothing in the context of the display detracts from the crèche’s religious message.” With the menorah, however, the “religious message” of the display was sufficiently watered-down with secular symbols to suit the Court’s taste: “the relevant question [is] whether the combined display of the tree, the sign [saluting liberty], and the menorah has the effect of endorsing both Christian and Jewish faiths, or rather simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society. [The] latter seems for more plausible . . . .”
So this is the path we have trod: from a Constitution that places no bar on States’ involvement in religion, to a Court that decides in its own infinite wisdom what comprises “too much” religion for display in the public sphere. Roy Moore found himself at the wrong end of that path, but not because he had lost his way. Those who dominate America’s political and judicial firmament detest religion, not only because it would acquaint them with the concept of shame, but also because of its respect for an authority that transcends any earthly source such as their own sorry selves. Roy Moore reminded them that America was founded with a view to that higher authority, and that they, not he, were in the wrong. Having stood up for justice despite little chance of victory, Roy Moore achieved greater honor than those Lilliputians judging him can ever aspire to.
Sunday, November 5, 2017
The Football Flap
I am rather enjoying the controversy surrounding the NFL and the vain, obnoxious refusal by many of its players to stand for the national anthem.
There's the standard dollop of legal illiteracy that portrays the players as exercising their right to free speech, when there is no such right as against a private employer -- you may have the right to kneel, but you do not have the right to wear an NFL uniform or to seize the NFL spotlight while doing so. To dispel these notions, one need only recall the unceremonious canning of a Google employee when he exercised his supposed right of free speech. The fact that the NFL is protecting these overpaid goons even while ratings plummet helps demonstrate the double standard in effect today -- speech that defends traditional principles will be punished, while speech that attacks traditional principles will be sheltered.
But all this makes me rejoice because it slaps middle America across the face and forces it to recognize -- at long last -- that the barbarians are inside the gates. You cannot bury your head in the sand or take refuge in your puerile sports-watching any longer. You have to choose sides, and more people are doing so. All my life I've witnessed denial by those too weak to confront the ugly truth; now the truth is so ugly that even the lowbrows are getting it, so at least I'm no longer alone.
There's the standard dollop of legal illiteracy that portrays the players as exercising their right to free speech, when there is no such right as against a private employer -- you may have the right to kneel, but you do not have the right to wear an NFL uniform or to seize the NFL spotlight while doing so. To dispel these notions, one need only recall the unceremonious canning of a Google employee when he exercised his supposed right of free speech. The fact that the NFL is protecting these overpaid goons even while ratings plummet helps demonstrate the double standard in effect today -- speech that defends traditional principles will be punished, while speech that attacks traditional principles will be sheltered.
But all this makes me rejoice because it slaps middle America across the face and forces it to recognize -- at long last -- that the barbarians are inside the gates. You cannot bury your head in the sand or take refuge in your puerile sports-watching any longer. You have to choose sides, and more people are doing so. All my life I've witnessed denial by those too weak to confront the ugly truth; now the truth is so ugly that even the lowbrows are getting it, so at least I'm no longer alone.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
White Guilt
I feel none, and I can't think of a good reason to. Western civilization's achievements in law, governance, economics, science, and medicine have bestowed more blessings on all of humanity than any other civilization or uncivilized tribe. It isn't even close. Our supposed sins -- genocide, slavery, racism, sexism, environmental degradation, etc. -- are not unique, but rather shared by everyone. What makes us unique is that we proved far more effective in achieving our goals, and we've also been far more merciful and compassionate than others have been or would be in our position.
We have been kinder to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other peoples than they ever have been toward one another, let alone to us. And American Indians? There are far more of them now than when we arrived, and their lifespans have increased quite a bit as well.
The real reason behind white guilt and hatred of whites is not that we are bad, but rather that we are good. Like a decent man who showers his beloved with gifts yet can't understand why this generates scorn rather than love, the men of the West today confront hatred of the good for being the good. The more slack we give, the more is taken. The more bounty we share, the more is demanded. And the more we apologize, the more we are condemned.
Stop it. We have nothing to apologize for, and we are going to be hated no matter what we do. The weak always hate the strong, and the love of the strong for the weak is never reciprocated. We have the right to say enough is enough and that if everyone is so damn capable, they can get out of our face and build their utopia without our help. Let them have Detroit, Los Angeles, Puerto Rico, and every other minority-white or non-white Shangri-La with no interference from us "evil" folk, and see how long it takes them to come begging for more help. When they do, slam the door.
We have been kinder to blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other peoples than they ever have been toward one another, let alone to us. And American Indians? There are far more of them now than when we arrived, and their lifespans have increased quite a bit as well.
The real reason behind white guilt and hatred of whites is not that we are bad, but rather that we are good. Like a decent man who showers his beloved with gifts yet can't understand why this generates scorn rather than love, the men of the West today confront hatred of the good for being the good. The more slack we give, the more is taken. The more bounty we share, the more is demanded. And the more we apologize, the more we are condemned.
Stop it. We have nothing to apologize for, and we are going to be hated no matter what we do. The weak always hate the strong, and the love of the strong for the weak is never reciprocated. We have the right to say enough is enough and that if everyone is so damn capable, they can get out of our face and build their utopia without our help. Let them have Detroit, Los Angeles, Puerto Rico, and every other minority-white or non-white Shangri-La with no interference from us "evil" folk, and see how long it takes them to come begging for more help. When they do, slam the door.
Thursday, October 5, 2017
The Vegas Shooter Just HAD To Be A Loner, Right?
That's the subtext bursting out of this news story that desperately tries to paint a gregarious gambler as someone who was quiet and frugal, since only weirdos like that perpetrate massacres such as what happened in Vegas recently. He probably even tucked in his shirt and didn't curse in public! Of course, "normal" people would never carry out a slaughter like this. They're too busy getting abortions, dutifully paying taxes to finance illegal wars, and voting for another psychopath to perpetrate those wars.
There is plenty of reason to doubt the official story here, not because of the shooter's personality, but rather because of recordings in which more than a single firearm are clearly audible, and because of the high improbability that an untrained senior citizen could maintain accurate and sustained automatic fire at such elevation and distance.
But even if the official story is true, in no way does it follow that the right to bear arms should be surrendered. The chances of dying in an incident like this are infinitesimal, plus it is better to live free and in danger than to live as a slave in safety -- at least that's what America's founders believed, though most people today lack the heart to risk their lives to preserve liberty.
There is plenty of reason to doubt the official story here, not because of the shooter's personality, but rather because of recordings in which more than a single firearm are clearly audible, and because of the high improbability that an untrained senior citizen could maintain accurate and sustained automatic fire at such elevation and distance.
But even if the official story is true, in no way does it follow that the right to bear arms should be surrendered. The chances of dying in an incident like this are infinitesimal, plus it is better to live free and in danger than to live as a slave in safety -- at least that's what America's founders believed, though most people today lack the heart to risk their lives to preserve liberty.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Re-Focusing My Energy
During some idle time the other day I was musing about the philosophical distinctions between Judaism and Christianity (yes, I spend my idle time thinking about these things). Obviously there are several such differences, but the source of all of them strikes me as this: Judaism is outwardly focused, while Christianity is inwardly focused. Judaism requires one to follow elaborate rituals and strive to improve the world. Christianity rejects legalism as insufficient to achieving spiritual health; instead, Christianity focuses on overcoming sin in oneself, not removing it from the world, which is fallen and ruled by the prince of darkness.
Surely I'm biased, but I prefer the Christian approach because it does make the world a better place in an indirect manner. The historical record is irrefutable as to the blessings of Christendom, plus I would much rather live in a world filled by people who are internally focused and care about being decent and righteous in their own lives, than to live in a world filled by unreflective busybodies and buttinskies who cannot mind their own affairs. If more people would remove the beam from their own eyes rather than scorn the mote in everyone else's, the world would be a far better place (though I'm fully aware that many people calling themselves Christians do not operate this way.)
With this in mind, I've decided to focus my energy more on my own life and less on the chaos that the world is falling into. The (imminent) publication of my third book Unlawful Government: Societal Collapse will be my last major effort at outward polemics for a while, though I will continue to make occasional commentary here and fight the good fight whenever it comes my way.
The world needs more people of dignity, responsibility, and principle. That is the person I will dedicate myself to being, while also enjoying life as my own boss with many good years still ahead.
Surely I'm biased, but I prefer the Christian approach because it does make the world a better place in an indirect manner. The historical record is irrefutable as to the blessings of Christendom, plus I would much rather live in a world filled by people who are internally focused and care about being decent and righteous in their own lives, than to live in a world filled by unreflective busybodies and buttinskies who cannot mind their own affairs. If more people would remove the beam from their own eyes rather than scorn the mote in everyone else's, the world would be a far better place (though I'm fully aware that many people calling themselves Christians do not operate this way.)
With this in mind, I've decided to focus my energy more on my own life and less on the chaos that the world is falling into. The (imminent) publication of my third book Unlawful Government: Societal Collapse will be my last major effort at outward polemics for a while, though I will continue to make occasional commentary here and fight the good fight whenever it comes my way.
The world needs more people of dignity, responsibility, and principle. That is the person I will dedicate myself to being, while also enjoying life as my own boss with many good years still ahead.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
From The File Marked "Do Not Get Married"
No deep reflections, just a random collection of news stories shedding light on why growing numbers of men are reluctant to engage in the ritual called "marriage" today.
- A Texas man was ordered to pay $65,000 in backdated child support for a child that is conclusively proven not to be his.
- A New York man who caught his wife in bed with another man now faces charges for unlawful surveillance. A century ago, the wife and the paramour would be the ones confronting charges (if not an excused execution on the spot).
- A New York woman pled guilty to sabotaging her fiancé’s kayak and pushing his paddle away, which caused him to drown. She (of course) claimed to be the victim of his bizarre sexual demands, though he was unavailable for comment.
- An Ohio woman engaged to be married was caught having a sexual relationship with a thirteen-year-old.
- A married teacher in New Jersey adopted a fifteen-year-old student in order to have sex with him practically every day.
- A British woman banished her husband to the sofa because she was angry at the long shifts he was working as a carpet cleaner. She found him dead on the sofa one morning, later discovering that he had been working so hard to save money to take them on a lavish vacation. Before his body was cold, she began sleeping with his brother, supposedly to help her through her "grief."
- A North Carolina man was abandoned by his adulterous wife for the doctor who employed her (of course). The man is suing the doctor under the tort theory "alienation of affections," which was once a standard legal tool for punishing conduct that strikes at the core of society, but which today is almost extinct and widely reviled.
- A married teacher in Connecticut was caught having sex in her car multiple times with a special-education student. The woman's husband dutifully showed up in court to help her defend against the criminal charges.
- A Wisconsin mother of two was caught having a sexual relationship with a sixteen-year-old. Apparently, the two had sex in the classroom dozens of times.
- A married teacher in Nebraska was caught having sex with a teenager on his sixteenth birthday.
- A married teacher and mother in Alabama was caught having sex with two different teenagers, sometimes at her family's home, and other times in a cemetery. She taught at a private, Christian school.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
On Being A Square Peg In A Round Hole
America is degenerating ever deeper into lunacy and a civil war that is probably long overdue; the latter is necessary to purge the former. In times like these it's fun to step back and reflect on your own life and what makes you unique. Everyone is unique to some extent, though some more than others. In my case, for example, I'm convinced I was born in the wrong century or perhaps even on the wrong planet. Maybe some of you out there feel the same way. Here are a few reasons I consider myself a square peg in a round hole:
- I don't understand people's obsession with sex. Yes, sex is enjoyable, but so are a lot of other things in life. To define yourself as a "sexual being" strikes me as just as crazy as defining yourself as a "wine being" or a "chocolate being."
- On a related score, I don't understand people's fixation on superficial attributes when considering relationships. Men are fixated on women who are young and gorgeous, while women are fixated on men who are tall and popular. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone whose soul doesn't attract me, and that has nothing to do with those other traits.
- It baffles me how people can say they will do something, but when the time comes they don't do it and act as if nothing happened.
- Whenever I witness or hear about somebody doing something obnoxious, dishonest, or cruel and getting away with it, I find it deeply upsetting regardless of whether it has anything to do with me.
- Although I'm right-handed, I hold the pen toward me like a left-handed person.
- I don't understand why people ride around on ATVs for fun. What's fun about driving a miniature automobile that has no windows or roof?
- I hate the wildly popular show Modern Family. The characters engage in a constant and obnoxious stream of sarcasm, with no hint of the sincerity that I would want in a family.
- The concept of charisma is meaningless to me. I've never met or witnessed anyone whom I instinctively wanted to believe or follow. I gauge all people the same way: on their merits, not their appeal.
- I love earning money just so that I can sock it away and save it. The joy most people get when buying a new TV or car, is the joy I feel when I steadfastly refrain from buying anything.
- I've never had the desire to mock or belittle people unless they did something to deserve it. The way people casually fling insults or backhanded compliments at friends, family members, or strangers strikes me as petty and rude, but it's pretty much universal. I suspect it's a noxious form of egalitarianism.
- It seems everyone takes the world as it happens to be right now for granted, without ever pausing really to question it. A typical American today thinks it's perfectly normal for there to be an income tax, forced wealth re-distribution (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), undeclared wars, public schools, zoning laws, "hate" crimes, and universal suffrage. All of these things are actually quite radical, but nobody cares because their perspective is narrow and confined solely to personal experience. I do care, but it's often pointless or even provocative for me to voice these kinds of concerns.
- I've always been excellent at pretty much anything I do, whether it was soccer, volleyball, water sports, snow skiing, weightlifting, pool, chess, ping-pong(!), academics, language, public speaking, debating, researching, writing, starting and running my own business, etc. But the one area where I'm awful is people, and ironically that seems to matter more than anything else.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Confederate Monuments
In the ongoing Kulturkampf against all things Confederate, more and more statues of the South's heroes are being removed from view. Though I don't know why I bother to debate these things on Facebook -- a hopelessly puerile forum -- I got into it with an acquaintance whose ancestors immigrated to America well after the War for Southern Independence, and who thinks that removing these monuments to the "losers" is just dandy. I posted the following response to her diatribe, which I'm sure will get me unfriended fast:
Even President Eisenhower explained that it is fitting to honor the heroism of Robert E. Lee and others who fought for the sincere -- and at the time, prevailing -- belief in the voluntary nature of the Union and the right to depart from it. To assert that Southerners have no right to publicly honor the sacrifices of their ancestors is radical and repressive. And if you look at the balance sheet, the South had far greater right to defend itself from invasion than the North had to conduct it, especially considering the barbaric campaign of rape, pillage, and plunder waged against men, women, and children throughout the South. It's eminently understandable why large numbers of people choose to honor the "losers" in that scenario. Then again, we come at this from different perspectives: my ancestors participated in the founding of the Union and the struggle over whether it would be maintained, so it is personal to me and many others with similar roots. We will not dig them up and burn them for anyone, nor should we be expected to.It looks like everyone must choose sides now. If it means that my "friends" dwindle to zero, then I suppose my life will become more cleansed and purposeful.
Monday, August 14, 2017
The Charlottesville Eruption
As someone who spent three years attending law school in the beautiful town of Charlottesville, I'm saddened that it has become ground zero in the latest battle of America's new civil war.
The official narrative is that a bunch of racists and right-wing fanatics descended on the town and brought death and destruction in their wake. The reality is that the marchers -- whatever their beliefs -- had a right to assemble but were confronted by a mob that was hellbent on causing a scene, and who were aided and abetted by the local government. This reality is being drowned out in the media, but it is not being overlooked by growing numbers of people who are disaffected with the status quo.
What happened in Charlottesville is unfortunate, and the fact that more whites are becoming racially conscious and radicalized is also unfortunate. But these things were predictable. You cannot on the one hand encourage every non-white demographic to be racially conscious and to demonize whites, yet on the other hand expect whites never to respond in kind. Either all groups must be blind to race, or all groups will be keenly aware of it. The former never happens, which is why multi-racial societies always degenerate into strife sooner or later.
My hope always has been for America to split up in a peaceful fashion. The people occupying this land today are no longer a nation in any meaningful sense, but rather a hodgepodge with no common set of principles, beliefs, or historical memories. If separation is not in the cards, I fear that Charlottesville will look like a picnic compared to what comes next.
The official narrative is that a bunch of racists and right-wing fanatics descended on the town and brought death and destruction in their wake. The reality is that the marchers -- whatever their beliefs -- had a right to assemble but were confronted by a mob that was hellbent on causing a scene, and who were aided and abetted by the local government. This reality is being drowned out in the media, but it is not being overlooked by growing numbers of people who are disaffected with the status quo.
What happened in Charlottesville is unfortunate, and the fact that more whites are becoming racially conscious and radicalized is also unfortunate. But these things were predictable. You cannot on the one hand encourage every non-white demographic to be racially conscious and to demonize whites, yet on the other hand expect whites never to respond in kind. Either all groups must be blind to race, or all groups will be keenly aware of it. The former never happens, which is why multi-racial societies always degenerate into strife sooner or later.
My hope always has been for America to split up in a peaceful fashion. The people occupying this land today are no longer a nation in any meaningful sense, but rather a hodgepodge with no common set of principles, beliefs, or historical memories. If separation is not in the cards, I fear that Charlottesville will look like a picnic compared to what comes next.
Friday, August 11, 2017
The Dustup At Google As Microcosm Of A Larger Problem
A Google employee circulated a memo challenging the stifling ideological conformity there. For merely offering a contrary voice among the constant drumbeat of leftism -- e.g., white men are evil, women and minorities are oppressed, blah, blah, blah -- the employee was fired.
This episode is a good example of what anyone who disagrees with leftist dogma endures on a daily basis, whether at work or at play. I myself have been unfriended by a number of people on Facebook I've known for decades, merely because on the rare occasions when I make a substantive post rather than the usual fluff, I go against the grain such as by applauding Brexit or Trump's electoral victory. It made no difference that I made my comments in my own posts rather than someone else's, or that I was polite toward all critics who crawled out of the woodwork (traits that they lack, as their posts and comments are often crude, obnoxious, and hostile).
Leftists are fragile souls whose apparent certainty in their beliefs is belied by the hysteria they fall into when contradicted. This hysteria reaches fever pitch when confronted by someone who is educated and articulate. The existence of such a person is not possible in their crimped universe, so in order to retain what little sanity they have, they must exile and delete that person from view (such as by firing or unfriending).
Strong, confident people are not threatened by disagreement. Leftists are not strong or confident, but rather weak and neurotic, which is why they constantly browbeat for equality -- such a state would lift them considerably above the one they naturally occupy and deserve.
This episode is a good example of what anyone who disagrees with leftist dogma endures on a daily basis, whether at work or at play. I myself have been unfriended by a number of people on Facebook I've known for decades, merely because on the rare occasions when I make a substantive post rather than the usual fluff, I go against the grain such as by applauding Brexit or Trump's electoral victory. It made no difference that I made my comments in my own posts rather than someone else's, or that I was polite toward all critics who crawled out of the woodwork (traits that they lack, as their posts and comments are often crude, obnoxious, and hostile).
Leftists are fragile souls whose apparent certainty in their beliefs is belied by the hysteria they fall into when contradicted. This hysteria reaches fever pitch when confronted by someone who is educated and articulate. The existence of such a person is not possible in their crimped universe, so in order to retain what little sanity they have, they must exile and delete that person from view (such as by firing or unfriending).
Strong, confident people are not threatened by disagreement. Leftists are not strong or confident, but rather weak and neurotic, which is why they constantly browbeat for equality -- such a state would lift them considerably above the one they naturally occupy and deserve.
Monday, August 7, 2017
The Impotence Of Atheism
Many of the people who reject religion do so by asserting that science is grounded in observable fact and therefore superior. Such people often tout scientific accomplishments in the fields of medicine, labor-saving devices, or astronomy to illustrate all the good that science has done for us.
But here's the problem. There is nothing scientific to suggest that a pacemaker is superior to thumbscrews, or that a nuclear power plant is superior to a nuclear bomb, or even that preserving life is superior to ending it. These distinctions are not based on science, which has nothing to say about them. These are judgments based on what is NOT observable, namely sentiment and ideals. Indeed, one can survey any number of the beliefs so strongly held by today's proud atheists and conclude that there is nothing scientific to support them:
So at the end of the day, self-proclaimed atheists are theists but just won't admit it. (As I've argued before, though, there are no atheists.)
But here's the problem. There is nothing scientific to suggest that a pacemaker is superior to thumbscrews, or that a nuclear power plant is superior to a nuclear bomb, or even that preserving life is superior to ending it. These distinctions are not based on science, which has nothing to say about them. These are judgments based on what is NOT observable, namely sentiment and ideals. Indeed, one can survey any number of the beliefs so strongly held by today's proud atheists and conclude that there is nothing scientific to support them:
- It is a fact that different races of people display marked differences in intelligence, athleticism, and any number of other measurable traits. There is nothing scientific about smothering this information or attacking people who bring it up, yet this is what atheists are often the first ones to do.
- It is a fact that all manner of animals and plants go extinct on a regular basis, irrespective of human activity. More than 90% of all creatures who ever inhabited the Earth are already gone, most of them long before we arrived. There is nothing scientific about trying to prevent more species from going extinct, yet once again it is the atheists who often insist upon doing this.
- It is a fact the Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels are constantly shifting, and that the Earth will eventually fry as the Sun continues to grow larger and hotter. There is nothing scientific about demanding that human activity be compelled toward preserving the Earth in a given state, yet once again it is the atheists who often insist upon doing this.
- It is a fact that governments espousing atheism and "scientific" governance -- e.g., Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea -- have caused far and away more deaths during the 20th century alone than religion can claim throughout all recorded history. There is nothing scientific to recommend an atheistic government over a religious one, yet once again it is the atheists who insist upon doing this.
So at the end of the day, self-proclaimed atheists are theists but just won't admit it. (As I've argued before, though, there are no atheists.)
Thursday, July 27, 2017
No More Trannies In The Trenches
Trump has stirred up another hornets' nest of righteous indignation by announcing that the armed forces have no use for transsexuals. This controversy has some interesting dimensions that make me support one side as well as the other:
- The modern armed forces have almost nothing to do with their constitutional role of protecting America, but rather are strung across the globe as a means to project American influence and impose a unipolar world order. To the extent the military is rendered less effective because of transsexuals and political correctness more generally, that's fine by me, since it makes imperialism more difficult to sustain. On that score, I oppose what Trump is doing and welcome resistance to it.
- That being said, the resistance is nauseating to behold. Transsexuals and their enablers believe that they have a right to serve in the military even if the military does not want them. This parallels the narcissism of immigrants and their own enablers, who fixate on their needs and wants while ignoring those of Americans, who have the unquestionable right to end immigration today for all foreigners or any subset of them, and for any reason whatsoever (race, religion, national origin, etc.). IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT, you selfish curs. It's about what the military and America want, regardless of whether it's "fair" or makes sense to you. There is no right to serve in the military or to immigrate into America. On that score, I support what Trump is doing because it vexes despicable people who need vexing.
- The notion that I am being taxed to subsidize a person's desire to transform from one sex to another is offensive on many levels. If you need an explanation for why this is, you're offensive too. On that score, I again support what Trump is doing.
- This entire controversy carries far broader implications than the military. This is just one shot in a sweeping cultural war. For those of us who are sick and tired of having every form of degeneracy shoved down our throats -- especially at the point of government bayonets -- any push-back is something to celebrate. On that score, I again support Trump.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
More Proof That Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Horse Excrement
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suffers from huge philosophical holes that I've discussed under my environmentalism label, but the holes are also beginning to gape on the empirical side of the ledger. A new study -- one that meets with modern science's fetish for peer review -- shows that the data have been fiddled with in order to supply a predetermined outcome.
I for one am not surprised by this. After all, I am well aware that humans are fallen creatures tainted by sin and who rationalize their desires rather than reason past them. This fundamental flaw in human nature will likely mean that the new study makes zero impact, for the truth is just as irrelevant here as in every other facet of human life. AGW was never about saving the environment. It always has been about handing more control to the government while slaking the masses' thirst for a worldly religion to replace the transcendent one they discarded.
I for one am not surprised by this. After all, I am well aware that humans are fallen creatures tainted by sin and who rationalize their desires rather than reason past them. This fundamental flaw in human nature will likely mean that the new study makes zero impact, for the truth is just as irrelevant here as in every other facet of human life. AGW was never about saving the environment. It always has been about handing more control to the government while slaking the masses' thirst for a worldly religion to replace the transcendent one they discarded.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Latest Trump Scandal Shows Establishment Desperation
News has broken that Donald Trump's son communicated with Russians in a bid to gather dirt on Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2016 election. When recalling that the mainstream media shoveled tons of dirt on top of Donald Trump for months before (and ever since) the election, color me underwhelmed by this latest revelation. Nothing illegal or even inappropriate happened, and Obama himself is on record as saying, “No serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections.”
Yet the drumbeat about a "stolen" election continues unabated. What's going on here is an obvious coup d'etat by the establishment and its adherents, whose twisted psychology cannot come to grips with the fact that Trump won the election and occupies the Oval Office. This is not supposed to be possible, hence it must be illegitimate in their jaundiced eyes.
For some insight into why the establishment hates Trump so much, consider that he recently gave a stirring speech in Poland about the vital need to preserve Western civilization. The objective of the establishment is a Tower of Babel that is global in scope, totalitarian in operation, and populated by a new global citizen who has no faith, race, ethnicity, gender, or any other hint of unique identity. Any call to arms to defend the West is a direct attack on this Satanic agenda.
However coarse or flawed Trump may be, he is doing God's work. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed. Whatever the outcome, the lines are drawn, and everyone must choose sides between national sovereignty and freedom on the one hand versus globalism and slavery on the other.
Yet the drumbeat about a "stolen" election continues unabated. What's going on here is an obvious coup d'etat by the establishment and its adherents, whose twisted psychology cannot come to grips with the fact that Trump won the election and occupies the Oval Office. This is not supposed to be possible, hence it must be illegitimate in their jaundiced eyes.
For some insight into why the establishment hates Trump so much, consider that he recently gave a stirring speech in Poland about the vital need to preserve Western civilization. The objective of the establishment is a Tower of Babel that is global in scope, totalitarian in operation, and populated by a new global citizen who has no faith, race, ethnicity, gender, or any other hint of unique identity. Any call to arms to defend the West is a direct attack on this Satanic agenda.
However coarse or flawed Trump may be, he is doing God's work. It remains to be seen whether he will succeed. Whatever the outcome, the lines are drawn, and everyone must choose sides between national sovereignty and freedom on the one hand versus globalism and slavery on the other.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Unlawful Aggression Against Syria
Five years ago I posted a short entry explaining why it would be wrong for the United States to intervene in Syria's civil war. A year after that I posted another entry explaining why it indeed was wrong for President Obama to go down that road. It's time to re-visit this subject for the Trump administration because the situation keeps getting worse, what with the news that the United States has shot down a Syrian jet fighter.
The law governing the international use of force is well-established, thanks in large part to the United States following World War II. As I've outlined in detail and repeatedly in my entries under the label "war," international force may be used only when: 1) a state is defending itself from attack; 2) a state is defending another state from attack; and 3) the Security Council authorizes force. As I've also discussed on prior occasions under the label "war," the United States consistently has disregarded, violated, and trashed these rules ever since helping establish them, a sick irony that is playing out again. Syria is in the midst of a civil war, which is not an international conflict and does not trigger any right of the United States to use force. Yet the United States illegally has inserted itself into this conflict on the side of the rebels.
By committing this sort of aggression, the United States has vested every other country on Earth with a legal right to come to Syria's defense by attacking us. This is how self-defense and collective-defense work. Russia is well within its rights to serve warning that it will take action if necessary.
It's unfortunate that Trump has not delivered on his promise to end these foreign misadventures and re-focus our energies at home, but then again, the entire weight of the entrenched establishment (and its mindless followers) is against him, so I doubt he can change course even if he truly wishes to do so. We are on the verge of chaos in both the international and domestic spheres. All of it is the natural and foreseeable consequence of modern man's impetuous inability to maintain the rule of law. But conflagration is also nature's way of clearing out deadwood and making room for new growth, I suppose.
The law governing the international use of force is well-established, thanks in large part to the United States following World War II. As I've outlined in detail and repeatedly in my entries under the label "war," international force may be used only when: 1) a state is defending itself from attack; 2) a state is defending another state from attack; and 3) the Security Council authorizes force. As I've also discussed on prior occasions under the label "war," the United States consistently has disregarded, violated, and trashed these rules ever since helping establish them, a sick irony that is playing out again. Syria is in the midst of a civil war, which is not an international conflict and does not trigger any right of the United States to use force. Yet the United States illegally has inserted itself into this conflict on the side of the rebels.
By committing this sort of aggression, the United States has vested every other country on Earth with a legal right to come to Syria's defense by attacking us. This is how self-defense and collective-defense work. Russia is well within its rights to serve warning that it will take action if necessary.
It's unfortunate that Trump has not delivered on his promise to end these foreign misadventures and re-focus our energies at home, but then again, the entire weight of the entrenched establishment (and its mindless followers) is against him, so I doubt he can change course even if he truly wishes to do so. We are on the verge of chaos in both the international and domestic spheres. All of it is the natural and foreseeable consequence of modern man's impetuous inability to maintain the rule of law. But conflagration is also nature's way of clearing out deadwood and making room for new growth, I suppose.
Friday, June 16, 2017
The Left Should Think Twice About A Civil War
Earlier this week a rabid Trump hater -- whose Facebook posts could easily get lost in the jumble of diatribes dappling my own newsfeed -- gunned down several members of Congress on a baseball diamond. This is just the latest and most prominent of several violent attacks by the "enlightened" and "tolerant" cohort, who apparently believe that enforcing immigration laws and preserving any semblance of a sovereign nation are hanging offenses. There is talk of how this simmering resentment will burst forth into a new Civil War at any moment.
Fine by me. If America's fifth column really wants to come out in the open and make war on the rest of us, it will be signing its own death warrant. These people are accustomed to wielding violence through the ballot box and are amateurs when it comes to getting their own hands dirty. Consider that the would-be congressional assassin got off 50 shots on an open field of sitting ducks yet made only a few hits with no fatalities. The violence of a leftist is nothing more than a temper tantrum; it can and will be put down hard by millions of quiet, purposeful Americans who own guns, practice with them, and know how to use them if and when necessary to defend themselves.
I would be much happier if some states seceded and took this rabble with them. We could peacefully go our separate ways and let them pursue their failed and fevered visions elsewhere. But deep down I suspect this won't happen because, as parasites, these people know they can't make it on their own and feel entitled to compel all of us to support and subsidize them.
Game on, then. Let us bring the ugliness of political violence out into the open and deal with it, rather than administer it antiseptically while pretending that we still have a rule of law. We haven't for a long time now. As soon as we made the Faustian bargain to reject the law in the pursuit of "the good," we sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.
Fine by me. If America's fifth column really wants to come out in the open and make war on the rest of us, it will be signing its own death warrant. These people are accustomed to wielding violence through the ballot box and are amateurs when it comes to getting their own hands dirty. Consider that the would-be congressional assassin got off 50 shots on an open field of sitting ducks yet made only a few hits with no fatalities. The violence of a leftist is nothing more than a temper tantrum; it can and will be put down hard by millions of quiet, purposeful Americans who own guns, practice with them, and know how to use them if and when necessary to defend themselves.
I would be much happier if some states seceded and took this rabble with them. We could peacefully go our separate ways and let them pursue their failed and fevered visions elsewhere. But deep down I suspect this won't happen because, as parasites, these people know they can't make it on their own and feel entitled to compel all of us to support and subsidize them.
Game on, then. Let us bring the ugliness of political violence out into the open and deal with it, rather than administer it antiseptically while pretending that we still have a rule of law. We haven't for a long time now. As soon as we made the Faustian bargain to reject the law in the pursuit of "the good," we sowed the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind.
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
My Book Is Being Proofed
Finally, I have completed drafting my latest book manuscript and should receive a proof of it next month, after which it will soon be available in print and e-book format. This is the third and final book in a series I started over a decade ago.
The first one discussed the various ways that the federal government has become renegade and operates almost entirely outside the Constitution, and it is called Unlawful Government: Preserving America In A Post-Constitutional Age. The second one discussed the various ways that the federal government (and other governments) are attempting to consolidate power on the world stage and thereby destroy international law along with the nation-state, and it is titled Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony.
This third one will discuss more than just law and government, but will also explore the various ways that the society supporting them is collapsing. In the realms of family, faith, education, freedom of speech and association, entertainment, economics, litigation, immigration, as well as government, America is falling to pieces. It seemed only natural to call the book Unlawful Government: Societal Collapse. Though only about one hundred pages in length, it's a double-barreled blast at just about every aspect of modern life.
For the cover art I have selected the incredible painting Destruction by Thomas Cole:
The first one discussed the various ways that the federal government has become renegade and operates almost entirely outside the Constitution, and it is called Unlawful Government: Preserving America In A Post-Constitutional Age. The second one discussed the various ways that the federal government (and other governments) are attempting to consolidate power on the world stage and thereby destroy international law along with the nation-state, and it is titled Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony.
This third one will discuss more than just law and government, but will also explore the various ways that the society supporting them is collapsing. In the realms of family, faith, education, freedom of speech and association, entertainment, economics, litigation, immigration, as well as government, America is falling to pieces. It seemed only natural to call the book Unlawful Government: Societal Collapse. Though only about one hundred pages in length, it's a double-barreled blast at just about every aspect of modern life.
For the cover art I have selected the incredible painting Destruction by Thomas Cole:
Friday, June 2, 2017
Well Played On The Paris Climate Farce, Mr. Trump
The news headlines and my Facebook feed are positively frothing over the fact that Donald Trump has chosen not to subjugate the American people to a globalist bureaucracy or environmentalist cultism. Good. Environmentalism and the narrative surrounding "global warming," "climate change," and any other catchphrase du jour are a complete farce, both philosophically and empirically (my posts under the label "environmentalism" explain this in detail). The more that people who advocate this garbage are upset, the more I know that something worthwhile is happening.
To be fully accurate, there are two classes of people who advocate environmentalism. One is the globalists who hate national sovereignty and desire power for power's sake; they use environmentalism as the latest narrative to justify their quest, since outright socialism doesn't sell as effectively anymore (as the old saying goes, environmentalists tend to be watermelons -- green on the outside but red on the inside). The other class of people who advocate environmentalism are the useful idiots who lap up the globalists' narrative and take it seriously; they have no sense of the metaphysical or the divine, and they eagerly latch onto the narrative peddled by their intellectual superiors for want of anything more substantial to believe in.
It continues to amaze me that so many Americans are willing to sacrifice their freedom and independence, and that they hate the man who is trying -- however imperfectly -- to preserve it for them. But then again, a true slave hates no man more than his liberator.
EDIT
I neglected to mention a third category of people who advocate environmentalism: crony-capitalist parasites who stand to gain by regulating their competitors out of business while reaping subsidies from the public trough. A perfect example of this is the execrable Elon Musk, whose Tesla boondoggle exists only by virtue of my tax dollars, and who predictably has harsh words for Trump. If the federal government strictly adhered to the Constitution and terminated all these regulations and subsidies, creatures such as Musk would go the way of the Dodo.
To be fully accurate, there are two classes of people who advocate environmentalism. One is the globalists who hate national sovereignty and desire power for power's sake; they use environmentalism as the latest narrative to justify their quest, since outright socialism doesn't sell as effectively anymore (as the old saying goes, environmentalists tend to be watermelons -- green on the outside but red on the inside). The other class of people who advocate environmentalism are the useful idiots who lap up the globalists' narrative and take it seriously; they have no sense of the metaphysical or the divine, and they eagerly latch onto the narrative peddled by their intellectual superiors for want of anything more substantial to believe in.
It continues to amaze me that so many Americans are willing to sacrifice their freedom and independence, and that they hate the man who is trying -- however imperfectly -- to preserve it for them. But then again, a true slave hates no man more than his liberator.
EDIT
I neglected to mention a third category of people who advocate environmentalism: crony-capitalist parasites who stand to gain by regulating their competitors out of business while reaping subsidies from the public trough. A perfect example of this is the execrable Elon Musk, whose Tesla boondoggle exists only by virtue of my tax dollars, and who predictably has harsh words for Trump. If the federal government strictly adhered to the Constitution and terminated all these regulations and subsidies, creatures such as Musk would go the way of the Dodo.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Trump's Budget Cuts Don't Go Nearly Far Enough
Everyone and his brother are up in arms over Trump's nibbling at the edges of the massive welfare state. Apparently, it is cruel for the federal government to re-distribute just a little less wealth than it typically does. There is perhaps no greater indictment of modern Americans than their shameless sense of entitlement to other people's money. Consider the following:
EDIT
I should have paused to address a trite apologetic regarding Social Security, namely that you supposedly "earned" this money because you paid into the system your entire working life. You didn't pay into anything; you were taxed, and the federal government immediately spent that money to pay existing Social Security recipients and to fund many other unconstitutional programs. When you retire, you will not be receiving your own money, but rather money plundered from millions of other people. This is a Ponzi scheme that likewise will collapse under its own weight (and not a moment too soon).
It reflects poorly on you if you argue that two wrongs make a right. It reflects poorly on you also if you prefer to surrender your liberty rather than rely on yourself, your family, or your friends to prepare for retirement in a voluntary and responsible manner.
- The federal government has no enumerated power to spend money for the purpose of alleviating anyone's poverty, hunger, or ill health, and any power not enumerated is reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment. As such, the entire edifice of the modern welfare state -- including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the like -- is an illicit monstrosity.
- Even the states traditionally shunned the practice of spending public money to alleviate private suffering, as this is an abuse of the awesome power of taxation, whose narrow purpose is to enforce law and order while leaving everyone otherwise free to spend money as charitably or otherwise as they wish.
- There is nothing "charitable" about spending public money to alleviate private suffering. Charity by its very nature is voluntary; public money is obtained through force. If you mug someone and distribute his cash to those in need, you are a thief rather than a saint. You are every bit as much a thief if you demand that a blow-dried politician do the same on your behalf.
- Public welfare has destroyed society by making people more dependent on government and less dependent on one another. Ever since the rise of the welfare state, private charities have withered on the vine. Worse still, every vice that helps generate poverty -- sloth, addiction, licentiousness, bastardy, etc. -- is now subsidized and encouraged rather than shamed or remedied.
- America is going broke and simply can't afford this any longer. Entitlement (i.e., "mandatory") spending is consuming a larger and larger share of the federal budget, squeezing out discretionary spending and sinking us even deeper under waves of non-repayable debt.
EDIT
I should have paused to address a trite apologetic regarding Social Security, namely that you supposedly "earned" this money because you paid into the system your entire working life. You didn't pay into anything; you were taxed, and the federal government immediately spent that money to pay existing Social Security recipients and to fund many other unconstitutional programs. When you retire, you will not be receiving your own money, but rather money plundered from millions of other people. This is a Ponzi scheme that likewise will collapse under its own weight (and not a moment too soon).
It reflects poorly on you if you argue that two wrongs make a right. It reflects poorly on you also if you prefer to surrender your liberty rather than rely on yourself, your family, or your friends to prepare for retirement in a voluntary and responsible manner.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
A Lesson From The Manchester Massacre
Another Muslim terrorist has murdered another bunch of innocent people in a Western nation, this time the UK.
All of you who put COEXIST bumper stickers on your automobiles in a cheap effort at virtue-signaling need to have your heads examined. Do you invite everyone to "coexist" in your house with you? Of course not, even if they are from your own neighborhood. We can all coexist on planet Earth, but there is no justifiable reason to encourage or even tolerate coexistence of alien and hostile cultures within a single nation. History is clear that this is a recipe for strife and bloodshed.
And no, America is not a "nation of immigrants" from around the world. America was settled and founded by a specific people from a specific ethnic, religious, and cultural background whose values are not universally or even widely practiced. The notions of (socialist) Emma Lazarus that are etched onto the Statute of Liberty cannot rewrite history. Consider the words of Alexander Hamilton:
The "nation of immigrants" claptrap took hold following the dreadful 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act, sponsored by Philip Hart (the product of Irish Catholic immigrants) and Emanuel Celler (the product of German Jewish immigrants). This blasted open the doors and has pretty much destroyed America as a coherent nation at all.
There is no shame in preserving one's nation while leaving other nations to chart their own destiny, just as there is no duty to sacrifice one's nation on an altar of sentimental platitudes. It might be too late for the UK to remember this, but perhaps it's not too late for us.
All of you who put COEXIST bumper stickers on your automobiles in a cheap effort at virtue-signaling need to have your heads examined. Do you invite everyone to "coexist" in your house with you? Of course not, even if they are from your own neighborhood. We can all coexist on planet Earth, but there is no justifiable reason to encourage or even tolerate coexistence of alien and hostile cultures within a single nation. History is clear that this is a recipe for strife and bloodshed.
And no, America is not a "nation of immigrants" from around the world. America was settled and founded by a specific people from a specific ethnic, religious, and cultural background whose values are not universally or even widely practiced. The notions of (socialist) Emma Lazarus that are etched onto the Statute of Liberty cannot rewrite history. Consider the words of Alexander Hamilton:
The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.
The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils, by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others. It has been often likely to compromit the interests of our own country in favor of another.
The "nation of immigrants" claptrap took hold following the dreadful 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act, sponsored by Philip Hart (the product of Irish Catholic immigrants) and Emanuel Celler (the product of German Jewish immigrants). This blasted open the doors and has pretty much destroyed America as a coherent nation at all.
There is no shame in preserving one's nation while leaving other nations to chart their own destiny, just as there is no duty to sacrifice one's nation on an altar of sentimental platitudes. It might be too late for the UK to remember this, but perhaps it's not too late for us.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
The Trump Holocaust
It's an embarrassment of riches for me lately, as I'm getting so much new business that my challenge has become to space out my work and make time for other activities, such as commenting here. This is a good problem to have, and I'm grateful for it.
I'm also grateful for the hysterical meltdown of the establishment, the media, and all their mindless adherents over President Trump. My reason is not only the entertainment value, but also vindication for something I've been preaching for a long time now: it is impossible to reform the system from within the system. Look, people. The establishment wants open borders, high taxes, pervasive regulations, a Third-World population to replace the American one, and a sock-puppet in the Oval Office to ensure that all of this happens. Trump is not part of the program, so the establishment is fighting back with every weapon in its arsenal short of assassination (for now). If Trump fights them off, great. If Trump goes down, the nationalist sentiment that elected him will erupt in anger and find expression in a new champion, one who isn't interested in negotiating with the stalwarts of the status quo, but rather in eradicating them. As Obi-Wan Kenobi warned Darth Vader, "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
A blunt -- but also very incisive -- assessment of the motives behind the attack on Trump is offered by Heartiste:
I'm also grateful for the hysterical meltdown of the establishment, the media, and all their mindless adherents over President Trump. My reason is not only the entertainment value, but also vindication for something I've been preaching for a long time now: it is impossible to reform the system from within the system. Look, people. The establishment wants open borders, high taxes, pervasive regulations, a Third-World population to replace the American one, and a sock-puppet in the Oval Office to ensure that all of this happens. Trump is not part of the program, so the establishment is fighting back with every weapon in its arsenal short of assassination (for now). If Trump fights them off, great. If Trump goes down, the nationalist sentiment that elected him will erupt in anger and find expression in a new champion, one who isn't interested in negotiating with the stalwarts of the status quo, but rather in eradicating them. As Obi-Wan Kenobi warned Darth Vader, "You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
A blunt -- but also very incisive -- assessment of the motives behind the attack on Trump is offered by Heartiste:
The Gaystream Media is in full-blown meltdown over Trump. He’s a man who shoots from the hip, and the media in its quest to destroy him — and don’t forget this means to destroy Heritage America who voted for Trump — has abandoned all journalistic integrity for clickbait generated by latching onto Trump’s extemporaneous riffing and completely stripping it of any context in order to frame Trump as the next Hitler.
I got to thinking what this reminds me of . . . women caught cheating. Confront a woman with incontrovertible evidence of her infidelity and she’ll be driven to hysterics, first denying the charge, then accusing you of distrusting her, then bashing you for being a horrible partner, then twisting your words to mean the opposite of what you mean to make herself look like the victim, then finally spitefully blaming you for pushing her into the arms of another man.
The Gaystream Media is that cornered whore, presented with solid evidence of their journalistic malpractice and zero integrity shilling for the globohomo agenda, who, knowing its credibility is shot, lashes out with hysterical fury and film reels of psychological projection. The womanish hysteria is what a busted cheating whore resorts to when the jig is up. Now all that’s left is for Trump and his supporters to hold their ground, stay firm, and show the door to the frazzled media.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Two Can Play At That Game
A staple of feminist discourse is that all men are rapists, or at least proto-rapists who will evolve into the real thing unless the urge to rape is drummed out of them. The support for this assertion is dubious, consisting of inflated statistics that include everything from actual sexual assault to neglecting to call back.
Yet there is a stronger case for asserting that all women are rapists, specifically of the pedophile persuasion. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a report about another female teacher fornicating with an underage student. It's not just my imagination, as the phenomenon has been noted. I'm sure many of you out there would never think of taking WND seriously, but it has compiled a massive list of these perverts that is authentic regardless of any ideology. What is also clear from the data is that female rapists are treated much more lightly by the criminal justice system. Indeed, a television movie starring Penelope Ann Miller portrayed convicted pervert Mary Kay Letourneau in a sympathetic light, so there's a double whammy: women are highly prone to commit rape yet less likely to be fully scorned or punished for it.
Imagine a "meninist" advocate visiting school campuses to preach that women are natural predators who must be taught not to rape, while demanding public funding for research into the epidemic. It sounds crazy, but the world we now inhabit is just as crazy if not more so because the genders are reversed, there is less evidence to support it, and there is far greater social and legal wrath accompanying it.
Yet there is a stronger case for asserting that all women are rapists, specifically of the pedophile persuasion. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a report about another female teacher fornicating with an underage student. It's not just my imagination, as the phenomenon has been noted. I'm sure many of you out there would never think of taking WND seriously, but it has compiled a massive list of these perverts that is authentic regardless of any ideology. What is also clear from the data is that female rapists are treated much more lightly by the criminal justice system. Indeed, a television movie starring Penelope Ann Miller portrayed convicted pervert Mary Kay Letourneau in a sympathetic light, so there's a double whammy: women are highly prone to commit rape yet less likely to be fully scorned or punished for it.
Imagine a "meninist" advocate visiting school campuses to preach that women are natural predators who must be taught not to rape, while demanding public funding for research into the epidemic. It sounds crazy, but the world we now inhabit is just as crazy if not more so because the genders are reversed, there is less evidence to support it, and there is far greater social and legal wrath accompanying it.
The Plight Of The Earnest
All I ever wanted to do was study hard, work hard, be a good man, maybe perform a stint as a public servant, and raise a family. It took me a long time to figure out that's just not possible for an earnest soul in a decaying civilization. The entire narrative confronting a man on how he should live today is a lie.
Study hard? Schools don't give a fig how well you master the material or demonstrate intellectual curiosity or achievement. All they want are students who dutifully listen to the faculty, who regurgitate the "right" answers, and most of all, who demonstrate an ability to become prodigious donors.
Work hard? The modern workplace is a circle jerk dominated by the C students who care only about money. Perish the notion of striving for excellence, taking pride in one's work, or behaving ethically. Such ideals stand in the way of churning business and functioning as a team player.
Be a good man? Are you kidding me? There are legions of good men who have been fired, divorced, imprisoned, or otherwise screwed six ways to Sunday because they lack the remorseless guile of their infinite adversaries. A good man today is a sucker.
Public service? Elected officials are expected to deliver as much plunder to their shameless and voracious constituents as possible. Judges are expected to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws on a daily basis. Anyone suggesting a modest, lawful role for government has no chance of obtaining or holding office.
Raise a family? It can be whisked away on a moment's notice, for any reason or no reason. Even if that doesn't happen, good luck on trying to instill any enduring values or principles, which are considered passé or even oppressive.
The plight of the earnest man today is either to be a participating victim or a dissenting rebel. There is no middle ground anymore.
Study hard? Schools don't give a fig how well you master the material or demonstrate intellectual curiosity or achievement. All they want are students who dutifully listen to the faculty, who regurgitate the "right" answers, and most of all, who demonstrate an ability to become prodigious donors.
Work hard? The modern workplace is a circle jerk dominated by the C students who care only about money. Perish the notion of striving for excellence, taking pride in one's work, or behaving ethically. Such ideals stand in the way of churning business and functioning as a team player.
Be a good man? Are you kidding me? There are legions of good men who have been fired, divorced, imprisoned, or otherwise screwed six ways to Sunday because they lack the remorseless guile of their infinite adversaries. A good man today is a sucker.
Public service? Elected officials are expected to deliver as much plunder to their shameless and voracious constituents as possible. Judges are expected to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws on a daily basis. Anyone suggesting a modest, lawful role for government has no chance of obtaining or holding office.
Raise a family? It can be whisked away on a moment's notice, for any reason or no reason. Even if that doesn't happen, good luck on trying to instill any enduring values or principles, which are considered passé or even oppressive.
The plight of the earnest man today is either to be a participating victim or a dissenting rebel. There is no middle ground anymore.
Friday, April 7, 2017
Strike On Syria Shows How Ordinary Trump Really Is
I had no illusions that Donald Trump was a champion of the Constitution or of international law, so I'm underwhelmed that he has launched an attack against Syria that blatantly violates both. Any other establishment politician would have done the same, and it appears that Trump is now drawing PRAISE from the establishment for acting this way. This is a reminder that the federal government remains a dangerous and lawless force no matter who happens to occupy it.
Let us hope that even if Trump does everything else wrong, he follows through and honors his promise to build a wall and prevent the ongoing invasion and destruction of the American nation, which is not simply a hodgepodge of immigrants from every nook and cranny of the world. America was founded and built by a specific, small group of people with a distinct language, culture, and religion. The fact that they were so successful at it made everyone else want to enjoy the golden eggs, yet now these interlopers are slaughtering the goose that lays them. What was once a humble desire to come to America has morphed into an obnoxious demand that America take all comers and that the founders' descendants roll over and die. Such demands amount to a declaration of war, and this is one worth fighting -- not the one in Syria.
Let us hope that even if Trump does everything else wrong, he follows through and honors his promise to build a wall and prevent the ongoing invasion and destruction of the American nation, which is not simply a hodgepodge of immigrants from every nook and cranny of the world. America was founded and built by a specific, small group of people with a distinct language, culture, and religion. The fact that they were so successful at it made everyone else want to enjoy the golden eggs, yet now these interlopers are slaughtering the goose that lays them. What was once a humble desire to come to America has morphed into an obnoxious demand that America take all comers and that the founders' descendants roll over and die. Such demands amount to a declaration of war, and this is one worth fighting -- not the one in Syria.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
No Replacement For Obamacare? Good
The failure by the congressional Republicans to replace Obamacare is just fine by me, for what they proposed was just another unconstitutional Frankenstein's monster. The federal government has no authority to regulate health care, and it cannot grant itself such authority by dint of the empty suits in the judicial branch.
Such power is reserved to the states, who can experiment with socialistic nonsense to their hearts' content. But decentralized experimentation never appeases socialists, since competition always washes out their hare-brained schemes and leaves them clamoring for more monopolistic power. History and economics are clear that heavy-handed regulations and price controls create shortages, yet this sort of witchcraft passes for sage policy in our new Dark Ages. It appears that the hundreds of millions of souls who perished in the blood-soaked ordeals of socialism during the twentieth century died in vain.
Such power is reserved to the states, who can experiment with socialistic nonsense to their hearts' content. But decentralized experimentation never appeases socialists, since competition always washes out their hare-brained schemes and leaves them clamoring for more monopolistic power. History and economics are clear that heavy-handed regulations and price controls create shortages, yet this sort of witchcraft passes for sage policy in our new Dark Ages. It appears that the hundreds of millions of souls who perished in the blood-soaked ordeals of socialism during the twentieth century died in vain.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
An Apparent Contradiction
For several years I've criticized the federal government as operating unlawfully, and I've called for the states and the people to ignore it while re-asserting more of their sovereignty. More recently, I've been advocating President Trump and delighting in his use of federal power to vex the corrupt establishment and its useful-idiot followers, who comically identify themselves as idealists. So, what's going on here? Am I in favor de-centralization, or do I hypocritically favor centralization when it happens to suit me?
My main concern always has been the American nation, which my ancestors founded as a refuge from the lawless, tyrannical, and immoral hellholes everywhere else in the world. They established the federal government merely as a means to an end, as stated in the Preamble:
However crude he might be, Trump has given voice to the nation in at least one respect, which is preserving this soil for us rather than let it degenerate into a fleabag hotel for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on Earth to use as they wish. If Trump can make the federal government serve the nation in such a vital matter that precedes all others, I can't help but support him in that effort. I wish Trump were more of a constitutionalist and sought to slash all unlawful federal programs, but the nation has late-stage cancer, and removing that many tumors at once would be too much for any public official to attempt.
Another reason I support Trump is that his enemies, who are legion, are poised to tear the house down around their own ears in order to destroy him. If they fail, the nation will benefit through Trump's efforts. If they succeed, they will merely undermine the legitimacy of the system, and the nation will be emboldened to assert itself more directly.
So, I support Trump because no matter the outcome for him as an individual, the nation as a whole gains ground.
My main concern always has been the American nation, which my ancestors founded as a refuge from the lawless, tyrannical, and immoral hellholes everywhere else in the world. They established the federal government merely as a means to an end, as stated in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The federal government was made to serve me and the other descendants (the "posterity") of that incredible generation. It was made for us, not we for it. Given that the federal government has lost sight of this by exceeding its enumerated powers, abusing us with unlawful regulations and wealth transfers, and exposing us to ruin by opening the floodgates to invaders from around the world, the nation has every right to invoke and reclaim its primacy.
However crude he might be, Trump has given voice to the nation in at least one respect, which is preserving this soil for us rather than let it degenerate into a fleabag hotel for every Tom, Dick, and Harry on Earth to use as they wish. If Trump can make the federal government serve the nation in such a vital matter that precedes all others, I can't help but support him in that effort. I wish Trump were more of a constitutionalist and sought to slash all unlawful federal programs, but the nation has late-stage cancer, and removing that many tumors at once would be too much for any public official to attempt.
Another reason I support Trump is that his enemies, who are legion, are poised to tear the house down around their own ears in order to destroy him. If they fail, the nation will benefit through Trump's efforts. If they succeed, they will merely undermine the legitimacy of the system, and the nation will be emboldened to assert itself more directly.
So, I support Trump because no matter the outcome for him as an individual, the nation as a whole gains ground.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Trump Wants To Slash Funding For The Arts
Bravo for him. The federal government has NO constitutional authority to spend my tax money on the arts, and whatever the Constitution does not allow the federal government, it forbids and reserves to the several states. This is made clear in the parsimonious language of Article I, Section 8 as well as clarified in the forgotten Tenth Amendment.
What the federal government does have authority -- even a mandate -- to do in Article IV, Section 4 is to protect the states from invasion. As such, if Trump wants to slash funding for the arts in order to provide more funding for a border wall, he is doing a bang-up job of discharging his constitutional duties as president.
The fact that many Americans excoriate Trump for doing such things is a measure of just how ignorant and degraded they have become.
What the federal government does have authority -- even a mandate -- to do in Article IV, Section 4 is to protect the states from invasion. As such, if Trump wants to slash funding for the arts in order to provide more funding for a border wall, he is doing a bang-up job of discharging his constitutional duties as president.
The fact that many Americans excoriate Trump for doing such things is a measure of just how ignorant and degraded they have become.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Ben Carson Spoke The Truth
When characterizing American blacks as immigrants. Now, I'm well aware of the official narrative and the virtue-signaling outrage I'm supposed to express on social media. According to this narrative Carson's assertion is contemptible because blacks were dragged to these shores in chains as part of the evil, terrible, oppressive institution of slavery.
But here's the thing. Merriam Webster defines "immigrant" as "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence." Blacks certainly fit this bill. If that's too amoral to countenance because it ignores the involuntary nature of what happened, consider that blacks routinely subjected each other to slavery, and when the opportunity presented itself they sold each other to slave traders. The slaves could have been slaves either in Africa or in America. The fact that some of them were lucky enough to make it over here is not something to condemn, unless of course one is so callous as to believe that everyone would have been better off if they had stayed in Africa. And I don't notice any mass exodus of blacks back to Africa; they seem quite happy to remain here, at least when they're not complaining about how "oppressed" they are.
Carson's real sin has nothing to do with linguistic or historical accuracy and everything to do with politics. He dared to deviate from one of the commandments of modern, mainstream discourse, which is that blacks are always and forever victims. While this self-pitying stance guarantees that blacks will never achieve equality, that's not the objective here. The objective is at is always was: power.
But here's the thing. Merriam Webster defines "immigrant" as "a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence." Blacks certainly fit this bill. If that's too amoral to countenance because it ignores the involuntary nature of what happened, consider that blacks routinely subjected each other to slavery, and when the opportunity presented itself they sold each other to slave traders. The slaves could have been slaves either in Africa or in America. The fact that some of them were lucky enough to make it over here is not something to condemn, unless of course one is so callous as to believe that everyone would have been better off if they had stayed in Africa. And I don't notice any mass exodus of blacks back to Africa; they seem quite happy to remain here, at least when they're not complaining about how "oppressed" they are.
Carson's real sin has nothing to do with linguistic or historical accuracy and everything to do with politics. He dared to deviate from one of the commandments of modern, mainstream discourse, which is that blacks are always and forever victims. While this self-pitying stance guarantees that blacks will never achieve equality, that's not the objective here. The objective is at is always was: power.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Media Stooge Admits That His Job Is To Control People's Thoughts
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski accidentally told the truth recently about reporters and journalists, whose humble mission is to deliver facts to the public, but who have far greater pretensions and believe their mission is to "control exactly what people think." Anyone who relies on the establishment media as a trustworthy, venerated source of information needs to have his head examined. These people are not in the business of delivering facts or speaking truth; they are in the business of molding opinions, and they have their own agenda.
The agenda is not necessarily right-wing or left-wing, but rather whatever helps giant corporations to do business regardless of national boundaries or loyalties. As such, and like all other rootless "intellectuals," they favor massive government, globalism, open borders, migration, multiculturalism (which is to say no culture), and anything else that will transform the world into a manor of hapless serfs at the mercy of their lords. They are growing more desperate and shrill because the Internet is awakening larger numbers of people to the evil game that's being played, and this awareness is what enabled Trump to overcome their rabid and unrelenting opposition. Even if they somehow remove Trump, they cannot stop the signal, which grows only stronger the more they attack it.
The agenda is not necessarily right-wing or left-wing, but rather whatever helps giant corporations to do business regardless of national boundaries or loyalties. As such, and like all other rootless "intellectuals," they favor massive government, globalism, open borders, migration, multiculturalism (which is to say no culture), and anything else that will transform the world into a manor of hapless serfs at the mercy of their lords. They are growing more desperate and shrill because the Internet is awakening larger numbers of people to the evil game that's being played, and this awareness is what enabled Trump to overcome their rabid and unrelenting opposition. Even if they somehow remove Trump, they cannot stop the signal, which grows only stronger the more they attack it.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Zuckerberg Tips His Hand
By declaring that he is a partisan of globalism and one-world government, while also an enemy of national identity and sovereignty. This little snot -- whose fame and fortune derive from giving narcissists a platform to admire themselves in front of others -- is punching way above his weight. Contrary to his flowery and insipid prose, there is nothing idealistic about erecting a worldwide Tower of Babel, which would destroy international competition and leave the world completely defenseless against universal totalitarian rule.
Even if we assume for a moment that Zuckerberg's vision has the best of intentions behind it, what happens when a global regime goes sour, as all human regimes eventually do? Who will come to our rescue the next time a dictator ascends to power? No one. All resistance to such people will be internal, weak, ineffective, and subject to imprisonment or death. As I've written on a prior occasion:
The battle lines are being drawn very clearly now, which may be Trump's greatest gift even if all of Trump's other efforts fail. You cannot be a patriotic American who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you also believe in destroying American sovereignty and putting it under the control of the teeming multitudes of non-Americans everywhere else. If you want to destroy the nations in general, you want to destroy America in particular, and you are America's enemy.
Even if we assume for a moment that Zuckerberg's vision has the best of intentions behind it, what happens when a global regime goes sour, as all human regimes eventually do? Who will come to our rescue the next time a dictator ascends to power? No one. All resistance to such people will be internal, weak, ineffective, and subject to imprisonment or death. As I've written on a prior occasion:
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.Zuckerberg and everyone else who hates Trump for his nationalism are dangerous idiots, but also useful ones for the plutocrats who want to transform the entire planet into a Third World oligarchy under their unrivaled control.
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.
The battle lines are being drawn very clearly now, which may be Trump's greatest gift even if all of Trump's other efforts fail. You cannot be a patriotic American who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if you also believe in destroying American sovereignty and putting it under the control of the teeming multitudes of non-Americans everywhere else. If you want to destroy the nations in general, you want to destroy America in particular, and you are America's enemy.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Time For A Smackdown Of The Renegade Judiciary
I've written at length about how federal courts have elevated themselves above the Constitution and routinely shred it (check my posts under the labels of 14th Amendment, Constitution, and law). Whenever given the chance, federal courts curtail the broad, presumptive power of the states while expanding the narrow, enumerated powers of the federal government. This also is the case with regard to immigration, as federal courts routinely step in to prevent states from taking modest measures to protect themselves from foreign invaders, such as terminating benefits like public schooling and welfare assistance. These benefits are entirely discretionary when it comes to American citizens, but for illegal squatters they are sacrosanct and untouchable.
In decision after decision, federal courts have held that the states have NO authority to make policy on immigration because this is the supposed province of the President and Congress -- who for their part do nothing and treasonously allow the invasion to continue, along with its associated ills of crime, disease, environmental degradation, budgetary strain, and cultural collapse.
As if by magic, all that has changed now that a President is wielding his power in an effort to stem the tide. Now ruling against the federal government and in favor of two states -- Washington and Minnesota -- a federal court has blocked President Trump's limited travel ban. Not only does this reverse generations of jurisprudence, but it completely ignores the constitutional doctrine of standing, whereby federal courts will not entertain a lawsuit unless the party bringing it can show direct harm and the possibility of redress for that harm. These states have suffered no direct harm and even admit as much, proclaiming that they are acting on behalf of individuals who might be harmed by the travel ban. In ANY other instance, the lawsuit would be dismissed on its face as improper and beyond the court's jurisdiction. How quickly that constitutional doctrine has vanished as well.
There is only one connecting thread to all this inconsistency: the establishment will say or do anything to keep the borders open and destroy the American nation. Under these dire circumstances, President Trump would do well to implement his policies and ignore the courts. President Andrew Jackson -- whose portrait graces Trump's wall -- ignored the Supreme Court when noting that Chief Justice Marshall had made his decision regarding the relocation of Indians and was free to enforce it if he could. Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's rulings against his multiple unconstitutional actions and even signed out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice. Both Jackson and Lincoln grace our currency, which I would gladly pay to watch Trump steal a page from their playbook.
Surely the establishment will cry bloody murder if he does something like this, but now is the time for choosing. Do we honor the courts and destroy the nation, or do we honor the President and at least try to save the nation? There is no easy way out.
UPDATE
A panel from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's ruling and, consequently, confirmed that most of the federal government is at war with the nation. This isn't really news, as the federal government has been at war with the nation for quite some time. The only difference is that now one branch is led by someone who is trying to save the nation before it's too late. The resistance from the courts is unfortunate, but the resistance from many people calling themselves Americans is execrable.
In decision after decision, federal courts have held that the states have NO authority to make policy on immigration because this is the supposed province of the President and Congress -- who for their part do nothing and treasonously allow the invasion to continue, along with its associated ills of crime, disease, environmental degradation, budgetary strain, and cultural collapse.
As if by magic, all that has changed now that a President is wielding his power in an effort to stem the tide. Now ruling against the federal government and in favor of two states -- Washington and Minnesota -- a federal court has blocked President Trump's limited travel ban. Not only does this reverse generations of jurisprudence, but it completely ignores the constitutional doctrine of standing, whereby federal courts will not entertain a lawsuit unless the party bringing it can show direct harm and the possibility of redress for that harm. These states have suffered no direct harm and even admit as much, proclaiming that they are acting on behalf of individuals who might be harmed by the travel ban. In ANY other instance, the lawsuit would be dismissed on its face as improper and beyond the court's jurisdiction. How quickly that constitutional doctrine has vanished as well.
There is only one connecting thread to all this inconsistency: the establishment will say or do anything to keep the borders open and destroy the American nation. Under these dire circumstances, President Trump would do well to implement his policies and ignore the courts. President Andrew Jackson -- whose portrait graces Trump's wall -- ignored the Supreme Court when noting that Chief Justice Marshall had made his decision regarding the relocation of Indians and was free to enforce it if he could. Abraham Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court's rulings against his multiple unconstitutional actions and even signed out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice. Both Jackson and Lincoln grace our currency, which I would gladly pay to watch Trump steal a page from their playbook.
Surely the establishment will cry bloody murder if he does something like this, but now is the time for choosing. Do we honor the courts and destroy the nation, or do we honor the President and at least try to save the nation? There is no easy way out.
UPDATE
A panel from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals has affirmed the District Court's ruling and, consequently, confirmed that most of the federal government is at war with the nation. This isn't really news, as the federal government has been at war with the nation for quite some time. The only difference is that now one branch is led by someone who is trying to save the nation before it's too late. The resistance from the courts is unfortunate, but the resistance from many people calling themselves Americans is execrable.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Inauguration Entertainment Spectacle
I'm thoroughly enjoying Trump's ascendancy into office, along with the incessant beating of breasts and gnashing of teeth by Trump's critics.
The inauguration speech was powerful, concise, and absolutely true. Trump called out the corrupt elitists who have betrayed America in their quest for more power under a one-world oligarchy:
As for people who merely fulminate how "oppressed" they are or how terrible it is for America to reclaim its sovereignty, I will continue enjoying their outrage for as long as Trump remains in office. They are outing themselves as a fifth column and accelerating a conflict that is long past due. If the fifth column is put down, wonderful. If America proves ungovernable and splits up, that's also fine, as we will cast off deadwood that is dependent, parasitic, and cannot thrive on its own. Cut them loose and allow them to fulfill their dream of being loyal subjects of a Third-World oligarchy.
The inauguration speech was powerful, concise, and absolutely true. Trump called out the corrupt elitists who have betrayed America in their quest for more power under a one-world oligarchy:
For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes starting right here and right now. Because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. . . .The only thing more encouraging than this was the spectacle of protesters, vandals, and similar detritus with too much free time all attempting to sabotage the event. Many of them have been arrested and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own. And spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay. We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.
As for people who merely fulminate how "oppressed" they are or how terrible it is for America to reclaim its sovereignty, I will continue enjoying their outrage for as long as Trump remains in office. They are outing themselves as a fifth column and accelerating a conflict that is long past due. If the fifth column is put down, wonderful. If America proves ungovernable and splits up, that's also fine, as we will cast off deadwood that is dependent, parasitic, and cannot thrive on its own. Cut them loose and allow them to fulfill their dream of being loyal subjects of a Third-World oligarchy.
Thursday, January 19, 2017
What Truly Infuriates Many Of Trump's Opponents
People who oppose Trump tend to do so because, as followers, they take their cues from the establishment (corrupt politicians, vacuous entertainers, and mercenary "intellectuals"). But I've noticed that the most virulent and vocal opponents of Trump hate him for an additional reason, namely his manifest intention to reduce government regulation, taxing, and spending. His plan to gut Obamacare alone has sent women of both sexes into fainting spells.
This is a sad testament to how the American people have degraded from free and independent citizens to slavish and parasitic subjects. It's gotten so bad that not only do they demand their lifestyles be subsidized through government force, but they assert a "right" to this plunder. So on the one hand a pro-choice woman proclaims that government must keep its hands off her body, but on the other she proclaims that government must place its hands in everyone else's pockets for her benefit. Dependency, like addiction, breeds cognitive dissonance.
What Trump's opponents seek to defend are not rights, but wrongs.
The federal government has no constitutional authority -- and certainly no moral authority -- to spend my tax dollars on your birth control, your abortions, your general medical care, your artwork, your housing, your education, your settling in America after migrating from abroad, your "green" technology, your farming operations, or any number of other activities you shamelessly demand that I subsidize.
The only person whose rights are at stake in these transactions are mine, not yours. You are a thief. Having the government as your accomplice makes you no less guilty. Indeed, I have a far greater right to avoid paying taxes for these things if I so chose, than you and the government have in forcing me to subsidize them.
Righteous outrage does not belong to any of you thieves and parasites. It belongs to us, the productive hosts. Attack Trump all you like. You will not destroy the righteous outrage that propelled him to the presidency, and his modest proposals to reduce government are merely one step on a long trek in the right direction.
This is a sad testament to how the American people have degraded from free and independent citizens to slavish and parasitic subjects. It's gotten so bad that not only do they demand their lifestyles be subsidized through government force, but they assert a "right" to this plunder. So on the one hand a pro-choice woman proclaims that government must keep its hands off her body, but on the other she proclaims that government must place its hands in everyone else's pockets for her benefit. Dependency, like addiction, breeds cognitive dissonance.
What Trump's opponents seek to defend are not rights, but wrongs.
The federal government has no constitutional authority -- and certainly no moral authority -- to spend my tax dollars on your birth control, your abortions, your general medical care, your artwork, your housing, your education, your settling in America after migrating from abroad, your "green" technology, your farming operations, or any number of other activities you shamelessly demand that I subsidize.
The only person whose rights are at stake in these transactions are mine, not yours. You are a thief. Having the government as your accomplice makes you no less guilty. Indeed, I have a far greater right to avoid paying taxes for these things if I so chose, than you and the government have in forcing me to subsidize them.
Righteous outrage does not belong to any of you thieves and parasites. It belongs to us, the productive hosts. Attack Trump all you like. You will not destroy the righteous outrage that propelled him to the presidency, and his modest proposals to reduce government are merely one step on a long trek in the right direction.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
The Intellectual Strata Of Society
As inauguration day approaches, I read my daily Facebook feed with a mixture of bafflement and amusement. Fulminations over Trump are a daily (even hourly) occurrence. These people honestly believe that Trump is a mortal threat to American life, ignoring the longstanding and obscene excesses of a federal government that has been running renegade beyond the boundaries of the Constitution for at least three generations. To review:
The vast majority of people -- perhaps 70% to 80% -- do not think for themselves as to any of the big issues that control or threaten their lives. These people live day-to-day. Their historical memory is confined to personal experience. They have a confirmation bias that interprets current reality as normal and any contrary thoughts, words, or deeds as abnormal. And, most important of all, they adopt and parrot the worldview of professional "intellectuals," who peddle a facile (and thoroughly false) narrative through the various news and entertainment media. The common man looks up to those who wield impressive-sounding degrees and official titles, eager to be on their side of any public debate rather than risk falling out of step. So the common man plasters a fabricated, bumper-sticker philosophy on his Facebook page or his car to advertise just how intellectually hip he his. In short, the common man is a sheep.
The professional "intellectuals" constitute perhaps 15% to 20% of people. Such people are not intellectuals in the true sense, which means caring about ideas for their own sake and exploring them to their conclusion regardless of consequences. Quite to the contrary, a professional "intellectual" is fixated entirely on consequences. Ideas are merely means to an end, namely power and/or wealth. Such people are not even very intelligent, and they engage in precious little that might be classified as rigorous intellectual work. But they are tenacious and fully devoted to manipulating words and ideas, which the common man will reflexively latch onto without bothering to analyze.
The remainder of the people are the small minority of us who are true intellectuals. We care about the truth, explore it, and speak it even though this infuriates pretty much everyone else, who vastly outnumber us. Our forebears are men such as Socrates, Epictetus, Christ, Thomas More, and many others who spoke truth but were persecuted for it. This blog and my books, for example, are clearly an intellectual exercise. They bring me no material gain whatsoever, but I keep at them because I care about truth and believe it's worth proclaiming, even if few are listening (and perhaps even especially then).
But getting back to my original point, the truth of the matter is that America is seriously compromised politically, financially, culturally, and morally. Trump is not the problem, which is far bigger and likely won't be resolved anytime soon, if ever. I predict that at the first sign of the trouble that has been brewing for a long time, everyone will blame Trump. That's when it will become REALLY invigorating to be an intellectual contrarian.
- Presidents unilaterally embroil America in ruinous and costly wars, a blatant seizure of Congress's sole power to declare war, which Congress hasn't exercised since World War II. In more recent times, Presidents claim unilateral power to spy on and assassinate American citizens without due process of law.
- Congress has utterly cast off its restraints of enumerated powers and operates as a national legislature rather than a federal one. It legislates on all matters great and small, thereby destroying freedom, interstate competition, and creativity. It also spends vast sums of money on anything it likes without regard to enumerated powers, dispensing political favors, bribing states and individuals into even greater servitude, and bankrupting us. Contrast all this to the words of James Madison -- the "father of the Constitution" -- who vetoed a modest public works bill on the basis that it was beyond Congress's enumerated powers and was therefore illegal.
- Federal courts -- when not rubber-stamping federal excesses -- routinely interfere in affairs that are reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment. They do this under the guise of the Fourteenth Amendment and "civil rights," despite breaking faith with the framers of that Amendment and making all rights hostage to secret Star Chambers.
- And let us not forgot federal agencies, who crank out rules and regulations with the force of law in blatant violation of the Constitution's designation of Congress as sole bearer of the legislative power
The vast majority of people -- perhaps 70% to 80% -- do not think for themselves as to any of the big issues that control or threaten their lives. These people live day-to-day. Their historical memory is confined to personal experience. They have a confirmation bias that interprets current reality as normal and any contrary thoughts, words, or deeds as abnormal. And, most important of all, they adopt and parrot the worldview of professional "intellectuals," who peddle a facile (and thoroughly false) narrative through the various news and entertainment media. The common man looks up to those who wield impressive-sounding degrees and official titles, eager to be on their side of any public debate rather than risk falling out of step. So the common man plasters a fabricated, bumper-sticker philosophy on his Facebook page or his car to advertise just how intellectually hip he his. In short, the common man is a sheep.
The professional "intellectuals" constitute perhaps 15% to 20% of people. Such people are not intellectuals in the true sense, which means caring about ideas for their own sake and exploring them to their conclusion regardless of consequences. Quite to the contrary, a professional "intellectual" is fixated entirely on consequences. Ideas are merely means to an end, namely power and/or wealth. Such people are not even very intelligent, and they engage in precious little that might be classified as rigorous intellectual work. But they are tenacious and fully devoted to manipulating words and ideas, which the common man will reflexively latch onto without bothering to analyze.
The remainder of the people are the small minority of us who are true intellectuals. We care about the truth, explore it, and speak it even though this infuriates pretty much everyone else, who vastly outnumber us. Our forebears are men such as Socrates, Epictetus, Christ, Thomas More, and many others who spoke truth but were persecuted for it. This blog and my books, for example, are clearly an intellectual exercise. They bring me no material gain whatsoever, but I keep at them because I care about truth and believe it's worth proclaiming, even if few are listening (and perhaps even especially then).
But getting back to my original point, the truth of the matter is that America is seriously compromised politically, financially, culturally, and morally. Trump is not the problem, which is far bigger and likely won't be resolved anytime soon, if ever. I predict that at the first sign of the trouble that has been brewing for a long time, everyone will blame Trump. That's when it will become REALLY invigorating to be an intellectual contrarian.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
En Route To Inauguration Day
When the White House will undergo an enema and, for the first time since Reagan, host a president universally hated by the establishment and its disciples. The latest ploy by the deep state to avert this outcome came to us courtesy of the intelligence community, whose effort to concoct lurid details about Trump fell victim to government ineptitude. Today's Internet is the modern equivalent of the Gutenberg press; now more than ever, people communicate freely with each other without obfuscation or hindrance from the professional "intellectual" class, who cares nothing about ideas but only about the power to be gained by manipulating them. A newscast in America today is merely Pravda or Izvestia in English.
What we are witnessing is bigger than a mere presidential inauguration. This is an uprising of the (patriotic) people against the arrogant, bloated, globalist, and corrupt political class. America was never meant to have a professional political class in the first place, but rather occasional stints of public service by private citizens. What better way to cast off the yoke of modern times than have a president who lacks any experience in public office?
None of this is to say that Trump will govern well. But he will govern against the grain, and that's good enough (assuming that the deep state doesn't exercise its final solution).
What we are witnessing is bigger than a mere presidential inauguration. This is an uprising of the (patriotic) people against the arrogant, bloated, globalist, and corrupt political class. America was never meant to have a professional political class in the first place, but rather occasional stints of public service by private citizens. What better way to cast off the yoke of modern times than have a president who lacks any experience in public office?
None of this is to say that Trump will govern well. But he will govern against the grain, and that's good enough (assuming that the deep state doesn't exercise its final solution).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)