Apr 26 2025
Our world has been called “a miracle,” “unique,” “BLEEP!ing amazing,” and many other things so frequently that such observations are considered cliches. Yet they’re perfectly accurate if dramatic. In witness whereof, and courtesy of Kenny “Wirecutter” Lane, I present the following graphic of a hippopotamus keeping his appointment with his dental hygienist:
Have a nice day.
Apr 26 2025
A criticism frequently aimed at military planners is that they’re prone to “fighting the last war all over again.” While the slam is often justified, there’s also some justification for the tendency being slammed. Experience is the military man’s guide. He might be perfectly conversant with recent developments in alliances, weapons, and tactics – he’d better be – but previous wars are what he “knows.” The binding effect of experience often offsets its instructional value, especially when it’s about what’s worked in the past.
As in warfare, so also in political combat.
From her background and resume, you might assume Batya Ungar-Sargon to be on the Left politically. Indeed, she was at one time. Yet she’s made a particularly striking observation about why Leftist rhetoric is failing today:
When you call Trump Hitler, you’re calling the majority of Americans making under $100K a year Nazis—for the crime of refusing to cosign their disinheritance.
That supremely piercing statement deserves reflection. First, it’s perfectly accurate: it both summarizes the Left’s primary tactic without distortion and skewers the way it’s rebounded against them. Second and arguably even more important, it asks a question: Why has that tactic ceased to work?
For the Left to call Republicans Nazis, fascists, and racists isn’t a recent development:
“When I compare [the Contract with America] to what happened in Germany, I hope you can see the similarities.” – Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY)
“These are people who are practicing genocide with a smile; they’re worse than Hitler.” – Rep. Major Owens (D, NY)
“In South Africa, the status quo was called racism. We rebelled against it. In Germany, it was called fascism. Now in Britain and the U.S., it’s called conservatism.” – Jesse Jackson.
“It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ anymore. They say ‘Let’s cut taxes.’” – Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY)
Ann Coulter’s early book Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right is a bulging compendium of such slurs. It’s meticulously footnoted; every quotation tied to its source and time of utterance. Leftist critics strained for a whole year to find and trumpet an inaccuracy in it and failed. You could almost get the feeling that she was just reporting the facts.
But I wasn’t thinking about that. Rather, I’ve cited those slurs and their profusion to note this: they ‘worked.’ They were no more accurate and no more just than they are today, yet they enabled the Left to maintain a slim margin of control over the American federal government for quite some time. But they’ve stopped working; why?
The answer isn’t monochromatic. In part, people “wised up.” In part, the Left embraced too many lunacies, perversities, and anti-American sentiments. In part, the Left’s “mascot groups” took note of how Leftist policies hurt rather than helped them. In part, the Left’s “media megaphone” (William E. Simon) was more powerful then than it is today. And in part, the Right found new leadership: men with spines who are willing to speak plainly and act fearlessly, without concern for the Left’s defamation chorus. The Left’s tactics bred the very enemies that now hold the levers of power.
It’s always that way. A successful tactic is one to remember, not to reuse ad infinitam. The political strategist must remember why it worked when it did: the specific context, the organs of communication employed, and the adversary’s responses. To repeat the tactic endlessly, mindlessly, with shrunken organs in a dramatically different context practically guarantees a smashing response.
Political combat is as challenging a study as warfare. The parallels between them can be overdone, but in this regard, at least, they’re on the same footing:
“My mentor liked to say that success breeds failure. You tend to repeat your old, successful moves because they worked, while your enemy is developing a new one to clobber you with. I guess he had a point.” [Shadow of a Sword]
Fighting the last war can get you blown to flinders – probably from directed-energy weapons in low Earth orbit, at that. Conservatives should bear that in mind.
Apr 25 2025
I was going to give myself an easy day today, when I ran across this infamy:
FRISCO, Texas – The family of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, who was fatally stabbed at a Frisco track meet, was targeted by yet another “swatting” call, police confirmed.
What we know:
Frisco police confirmed that officers responded to a call about a gunshot on Monday at a home linked to the Metcalf family.
But when officers got there, they determined there was no shooting.
Instead, Frisco police called it a “swatting” incident, which is when a false report is made to law enforcement to prompt an emergency response.
This is the third time the Metcalfs have been subjected to swatting.
There were incidents on April 8 and April 17 that happened at each of Metcalf’s parents’ homes.
So the Metcalf family, already bereaved of one of its young sons, is not being allowed to live in peace. Meanwhile this… person:
… who killed Austin Metcalf, is free on bail, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars through GoFundMe, and is living with his family in a new $800,000 house.
There comes a point at which it’s impossible for the outrage to grow any further. Do the morons who’ve supported murderous black thug Karmelo Anthony, and who’ve terrorized the surviving Metcalfs, have any idea what they’re helping to bring about? Do they imagine that white Americans’ patience and forbearance cannot be overstressed? Or are they eager for the race war they’re helping to advance?
I don’t recall the members of the Manson family being this openly vicious, but then, the lot of them were swiftly rounded up and arrested after their murder spree. And they didn’t get bail.
When I wrote this brief tale, it was still possible to convince me that America’s race problem – and let me be absolutely specific about that: it’s blacks’ hatred of whites — could be solved, or at least reduced to a tolerable level. No longer. There will be war, and it will be bloody. The best anyone can hope for is to have it pass him by.
Apr 25 2025
This one comes from The Village Hemorrhoid:
You get what you pay for, so make sure you know what you’re paying for!
Apr 25 2025
Then hearken to Derek Hunter:
Actually, worse than a death cult, the left is a murder cult.
If I may quote the early Glenn “InstaPundit” Reynolds: He’s right.
Apr 25 2025
Once again, Mike Miles is on the job:
But what kind of persecution? Do you know how hard it is to get convicted of rape in an Islamic court? It takes four male witnesses to the act, all willing to testify against the rapist. That doesn’t happen very often, to say the least.
So the kind of “persecution” I imagine this rapist would face, were he to be deported to Iran, is frequent, public howls of laughter from other Iranian men.
Apr 24 2025
I know you expected more than one brief piece, but I’m pretty ill. I can’t stay sitting up for more than a couple of minutes. So have a nice day, and check back tomorrow.
All my best,
Fran
Apr 24 2025
Yet another provocative graphic courtesy of Mike Miles:
That’s not a completely new observation, but it does highlight one of the human psyche’s great vulnerabilities. No one wants to admit to having been gulled. Gullibility is considered shameful. The longer and more completely one has been misled, the greater the wound to the ego. Thus, to react against the truth-teller is a form of ego defense.
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs puts self-esteem – alternately and perhaps more cogently, self-respect – at the fourth level of the pyramid, just above acceptance. In an advanced society such as ours, functioning adults rarely think about the three lower levels of that hierarchy. Having achieved them is considered fundamental to self-sufficient adulthood. That intensifies blows to the ego.
Whatever one may think about the political positions espoused on the Left, most of those folks are self-sufficient adults. They don’t want to be told they’ve been duped; the suggestion is subliminally offensive to them. Yet that is what the DoGE group’s discoveries are telling them. Their reaction is understandable, just as ours was when it was revealed that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.
Which doesn’t make it any less imperative that the revelations continue.
Apr 23 2025
American politicians tend to emulate the worst ideas of their Continental partners in crime. (Among the reasons so many of them dislike Donald Trump is that he does the opposite.) This is particularly true when it comes to taxation.
Up north in Canada, the government taxes virtually everything – and as hard as they can. Like our statist thugs governments, they never have “enough money.” Just now, they’re entertaining the idea of taxing Canadian homeowners’ home equity:
If you own a home, particularly if it’s paid off, congratulations. You’re about to become the government’s next target.
For years, Liberal governments have hunted for new revenue sources. First, it was high-income earners. Then it was small businesses. Then it was emissions, and now, they’ve found the motherlode: Home equity.
The combined equity in Canadian homes — what people actually own after mortgages — is worth trillions. That’s not a typo. Trillions. This wealth wasn’t handed out. It wasn’t generated by government programs. It was built by Canadians who worked overtime, cut spending, and took risks to buy property and maintain it.
When politicians see numbers that big, they don’t think about personal sacrifice. They see opportunity. They see a pot of money they didn’t earn but can tap, spin, and reframe as a “solution” to national problems. Especially now, with new programs promised and no fiscal discipline in sight.
Big pots of money attract politicians the same as fresh piles of shit attract flies. If you’ve got it, they want it, and nothing but armed resistance will keep them from reaching for it. The examples are legion. I’m sure you could cite a few yourself.
Now, the above is happening in Canada, and so is not Americans’ problem… for now. But it’s not that long ago that the Clinton Administration proposed to tax American homeowners in a similar if not identical fashion. President Clinton’s rationale was that homeowners have an “unfair advantage” over non-homeowners:
Keep your eyes on the House Ways and Means Committee. If the Canadian federal government imposes a home equity tax and makes it stick, you can bet the mortgage money that our federal government will try it, too.
A tangential but related observation: I’m a homeowner. I get one or more calls every week from unidentified persons who want to know if I’d be interested in an “offer.” I’m not and I tell them so. But consider: it would be in American governments’ interest for us all to be renters. Renters can be herded far more easily than homeowners. And that “15-minute” “Smart City” idea has never been buried. (Nope. It’s never even had Extreme Unction.) So our rulers have more incentives than just the financial one to “encourage” us out of our owned homes. Given their oft-demonstrated avarice, how can we trust them not to embrace the Canadian Liberals’ proposal to tax home equity?
Remember that you read it here first.
Apr 23 2025
I’ve seen this sentiment many times lately:
Mind you, Leftist Democrats don’t actually say “I love those MS-13 gangbangers.” Their behavior says it for them. (Not one of them went to any trouble over the American hostages being held by HAMAS. Remember that.) And of course, we must ask why they’re so fond of murdering illegal alien savages.
There are only two answers that hold water:
The first of those is irrational in the extreme. By and large, however venal and vulpine they may be, Democrats in federal office aren’t stupid. So I’d assign that a low probability.
The second explanation has unpleasant implications. Yet it’s consistent with other Democrat behavior patterns. They want the State to be viewed as the be-all and end-all, in particular as the citizenry’s one and only protector. (Nota bene: That’s the definition of fascism. Review your Mussolini.) That’s why they’re hostile to the private ownership of firearms. A disarmed populace can’t protect itself against predators.
But even a disarmed populace won’t feel a need for protection unless there’s a threat in town. “Aha!” say the Democrats. “Let’s import a threat!” And they’ve done exactly that.
An expanding threat creates a rationale for more police.
Unarmed citizens dominated by a large police presence are easily subjugated.
That’s very much to the taste of the Democrats.
Just one of those nasty early-morning thoughts.
Apr 22 2025
The surprise ending is one of mystery and thriller writers’ staple commodities. They use the sudden “twist” in two ways:
In recent years, the surprise ending has become popular in a far more abbreviated format: the quickie text graphic. Some of them are priceless. I collect the better ones and share them with the C.S.O., a lifelong mystery buff. But some are better than others. Today, courtesy of Bustednuckles, I believe I may have encountered the most surprising, the most currently relevant, and the funniest yet:
I laughed so hard I hurt myself.
Apr 22 2025
According to yesterday’s news – please forgive me; I’ve lost the link – the legislatures of eleven states are considering making ivermectin an over-the-counter drug, available to any adult purchaser without a prescription. I haven’t read of any open reactions from the medical establishments, but my prediction is that we’ll find out, sooner or later, that they’re not pleased.
America’s medical cartel has great power. Cartels don’t like to see any chips in their armor. Even a tiny chip can get people thinking… and talking.
I’m not medically knowledgeable. (I figured the less I “know” about what’s going on inside me, the less likely I’d be to fret about it. Stress kills a lot more people than the medical establishment will freely admit.) I know little about ivermectin, for example. I do know that its developers won the Nobel Prize, which suggests that there’s something very useful about it.
Governments are jealous of power, as I’ve written many times. He who controls a vital resource has power over those who need it. That’s why governments strive to gain control over water supplies. Monopolies and cartels behave in much the same fashion.
When the Flexner Report was first broached, the gloss on it was utilitarian; its recommendations were presented as “for the public good.” (“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good?” — Hank Rearden) But its primary consequence was the reduction of the number of conventional medical schools in the U.S., and the closure of “alternative” medical schools (e.g., for osteopaths and homeopathy). In short, as with all measures for “licensing” a given occupation, it shrank both the number and the variety of medical services available to Americans.
Coupled with the Pure Food and Drug Act, medical licensure took the power to treat Americans’ various bodily conditions away from the private citizen and gave it to the State and those it would license. Indeed, there was pressure to eliminate the over-the-counter availability of anything deemed a “drug,” such that licensed medical practitioners would control all access to anything deemed medically useful. Fortunately, drugs such as aspirin, which had already been in use for a long time, remained freely available… but not for lack of trying by the newborn medical establishment.
Conditioning access to medical goods and services on State approval has produced the situation we endure today, in which those things are becoming ever less available, ever more expensive, and ever more of doubtful efficacy. Consider the recent campaigns of defamation against chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin in that light.
Licensure is a pretty name for a foul practice. When an occupation is subject to licensure, the State restricts who may practice it, though usually through a nominally “private” designee (e.g., the American Medical Association). That gives the State monopoly power over that occupation. It can increase or decrease the availability of practitioners at its whim. Given the prescription regimen, the designees of the State have acquired absolute power over virtually all medicine in these United States.
Power attracts the villain far more strongly than the decent man. As regards medicine, that dynamic is offset – partially – by the other attractants to a career in medicine or the associated sciences. Still, greed and power-lust have done their part in changing the American medical landscape for the worse.
Of course medicine is not alone in this way. Once the State got the licensing bug, it was guaranteed to push its snout ever deeper into human affairs. Today there are over eleven hundred licensed occupations. Those who wish to practice any of them are subject to a web of conditions, constraints, requirements, and fees that their Nineteenth Century forebears would have blanched at.
I’m not a Pollyanna. There’s no argument that some good did emerge from medical licensure. But let’s not blind ourselves to its other consequences. The State has seized so great a degree of power over us that virtually anything we take it into our heads to do, including on our own bodies, requires permission from the State or one of its lackeys. Ask our British and Canadian cousins how far that regime can be pushed – and the ultimate consequences for us who meekly permit it.
Apologies for the early-morning tirade, Gentle Reader. This particular subject has been a thorn in my flesh for decades. I consider myself fortunate that the occupations I’ve practiced lifelong have eluded the grasp of the State. I don’t expect that to continue much longer; engineering is now one of the most common – and commonly pursued – trades in the world. Someone, somewhere must be tinkering with a proposal for licensing us. And as for fiction and the other forms of popular entertainment… no, I mustn’t go there at this hour.
Allow me a closing quote:
Power, like the diamond, dazzles the beholder, and also the wearer; it dignifies meanness; it magnifies littleness; to what is contemptible, it gives authority; to what is low, exaltation. – Charles Colton
But do have a nice day.
Apr 21 2025
“May it please milord hero, the world is not what we wish it to be. It is what it is. No, I have over-assumed. Perhaps it is indeed what we wish it to be. Either way, it is what it is. Le voila! Behold it, self-demonstrating. Das Ding an Sich. Bite it. It is. Ai-je raison? Do I speak truly?” — Robert A. Heinlein, Glory Road
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve quoted Heinlein, here and in other places where my writing has appeared. On occasion, I ask myself whether I’d have become the person I am without his influence. Occasionally I’ve differed with one of his sentiments, but not often, and not in a superior, I-know-more-than-you-about-this spirit. And today, I think I know why I hold him in such esteem.
Heinlein was a sober man. Just as in Star’s comment at the top of this piece, he took reality as it comes, and worked within its constraints. When pontificating about anything real, he stuck firmly to observable, verifiable reality. He limited his finesses to his fiction.
Just now, many millions of drunks are awakening to some of reality’s hard surfaces. Some are angry that reality hasn’t indulged them. They don’t seem to recognize that one can’t “legislate” changes to the laws of nature. Not that it hasn’t been tried.
I’m off on a ramble here, so follow along if you like, surf away if you don’t. I don’t promise any millennial illuminations, just a few thoughts about aspects of reality we’d prefer to be otherwise.
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“That fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”— Stephen Crane —
Nobody rides for free,
Nobody gets it like they want it to be,
Nobody hands you any guarantee.— Jackson Browne —
Matt Bracken, whom I admire greatly, has penned one of his darkest forebodings:
Folks in the post-war generation born between 1946 and 1964 are now sixty or older. Scanning social media, it’s hard to miss the anger building against Baby Boomers. Those born after them are increasingly placing the blame for their woes on the unrelenting greed of the Baby Boomer generation. They believe that the Boomers had the sheer luck to be born when America was in its ascendency, and so they accumulated all the wealth, and now they are determined to take it all with them to the grave, not sharing a penny with the generations which came after.
[…]
So add anger toward the Baby Boomer generation to the anger of Blacks against Whites, the poor against the rich, socialists against capitalists, Democrats against Trump Republicans, and a witch’s brew of social anger is being stirred with more and more fire building under the bubbling pot.
Our social contract is so frayed that when riots begin the withheld anger boils over.
White Baby Boomers living in single-family homes in affluent suburbs will be at the greatest risk of any demographic. The anger toward them will be come from several social vectors at the same time. People displaced from urban cores by rampant criminality will have no compunction at all against invading the homes of empty-nest Baby Boomers. Their lives will be taken in the first minutes if they are fortunate. If not, their prolonged abuse and torture will serve to amuse the new tenants.
A grim imagining, to be sure. Moreover, it has a nonzero chance of materializing in the foreseeable future. The key insight is a simple one:
There’s a great deal to say about the process from which this situation developed. I’m not going to say any of it. It is what it is. The past isn’t just a foreign country; it’s an inaccessible country, frozen in time’s peculiar amber. We must live, plan, and work today.
There are many ways of partitioning a population into demographic cohorts. The one of importance today is not one of the usual ones. Indeed, it has an unpleasant cast:
These are not like racial or ethnic distinctions. Individuals can move between them, and often do. Many other characteristics are found in both cohorts. Nor is it fair to say that one cohort is “good” and the other “bad.” I’ve known career criminals who were utterly realistic, and individuals who were sweet as sugar, kind to everyone they met, who nevertheless were consumed by envy.
One dominated by envy is unable to perceive reality clearly. It’s a lot like being drunk. The cause-and-effect chains enforced by the laws of nature, including human nature, are out there operating smoothly, as they always have. The envious either are blind to them, or will them aside. They “want what’s coming to them,” and that’s all there is. Who said anything about work?
He who “sobers up” – i.e., who accepts reality as it is – will usually operate sanely thenceforward. He’ll understand that nobody rides for free and that nobody owes you nothin’. He’ll work for what he wants. There’s no guarantee that he’ll get it, of course, but simply by accepting the italicized propositions, he greatly improves his chance of getting it.
But drunkenness has a grip. It feels liberating, at least for a while. No constraints! No rules! Just this dizzying ride that seems to last forever. It won’t, of course. That recognition must precede the sobering-up.
The passage of time steadily separates the sober from the drunken. Over time the gap between then in financial matters, in social status, and in prospects for survival grows ever larger. Some of the drunken awaken to that gap, shake off the fog of intoxication, and get to work righting themselves. Some are shaken awake by the loss of their “enablers.” But some remain drunk lifelong.
I’ve known men who had a long period of sobriety shattered by an unfriendly turn of chance, and tumbled into drunkenness. I’ve also known men who, though drunk for a considerable time, sobered up, set to work, and eventually joined the ranks of the accomplished and respected. As I said above, people do move between those cohorts.
The former group often wallow in their miseries. Whatever balm self-pity provides, they slather it on, ignoring whatever insights their misfortune might have borne. The latter group often look back on their drunken period and say “It wasn’t good, exactly, but I learned a lot from it.” The contrast educates them in ways that, quite possibly, nothing else could have done. Yet in both cases, reality continues to be what it is. Its laws aren’t suspended to do either group dirty.
The analogy does have some rough spots. Being consumed by envy isn’t exactly like drunkenness. But both prevent the sufferer from accepting what he needs to do to improve his lot.
My self-imposed exile wasn’t for any particular purpose. Maybe it served one even so.
—No maybes about it, Al. You are not who or what you were. You’re far more. Some of it is invisible to you yet, though it won’t be forever. Just one of the unacknowledged laws of human nature at work.
Which is?
—At every moment of your life, you are everything you have ever been. It’s all there, from the instant of your birth onward to this very moment. And it all plays a part.
Even the pain?
—Especially the pain.
Among the naïve demographic classifications – it’s mainly of interest to socialists – is the partition into Haves and Have-Nots. The appearance of Having can be misleading. Many who appear to Have, including some who Have in great measure, are terribly envious. Similarly, many who appear to Have-Not are happy even so. They might have aspirations, but they’ve accepted their current status as the reasonable result of prior decisions and actions. (Columnist Fred Reed once referred to them as “the successfully poor.”)
Part of what makes for happiness is the acceptance that there are things one cannot change. Among those things are the past and the laws of nature. Material wealth seems to matter less than the possession of that bedrock realism. It makes it possible to treat past and present as starting points rather than fetters.
Envy destroys happiness. It focuses the envious one on things he cannot change. He comes to hate them. That he cannot change them only sharpens his hatred. And as one cannot hate natural laws, that hatred must find a palpable target. Usually it’s persons who “have it good.”
Matt Bracken’s piece suggests that the envious could soon mobilize against those they envy. He cites the Baby Boom generation as the likely initial target, though he also foresees an “All The Last Wars At Once” deterioration into ever finer factions among whom there is no peace.
What will divide the warring factions from one another is envy. Each will see the others – some of them, at least – as unfairly “having it good.” The criterion may be material, social, or any other pseudo-metric one can imagine. When envy is in the saddle, no good destination is in sight.
It won’t matter that many who “have it good” worked themselves to a sliver to get what they have. It won’t matter that in many cases the envied one’s true condition is far less desirable than it appears. Envy dismisses such considerations.
The value of Bracken’s essay to those of us who aren’t ruled by envy is that it points the way to what we should do, if we think Bracken’s predicted future likely. But there’s a lot of envy out there to power the kind of chaos Matt fears. My assessment is that it’s an even-money bet.
I’ve said enough. Read Matt’s piece. Gather for yourselves whatever evidence you need to decide whether his prognostications are likely or unlikely. Then act accordingly.
Planning and acting according to what you see and expect is the imperative of realism. Though the Left is doing its damnedest to prevent it, we could enjoy a national outbreak of sobriety. In that case, the future will be bright. Alternately, millions of Americans could sink ever deeper into envy and resentment of others. In that case, trouble is coming.
Have a nice day.
Apr 21 2025
Yesterday evening, Pope Francis, the Supreme Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, passed away. He was 88 years old and had been Pope for twelve years.
Pope Francis, who had been Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina before his elevation to the Throne of Saint Peter, was a divisive figure in many ways. He soft-pedaled several longstanding Catholic doctrines. He inserted himself and his opinions into many non-theological subjects, to the dismay of millions of Catholics of different views. Yet he was loved, for Catholics have always loved their popes. It’s in the book.
Now there will be a Conclave of the College of Cardinals. There will be speculation about Francis’s successor, including whether the next Pontiff will continue in Francis’s vein or return to the more traditional path Francis’s predecessor Pope Benedict XVI had followed. Talking heads worldwide will natter over these things and others as we await white smoke from the Vatican. It’s understandable that they should do so, for the Pope is the most important mortal on Earth. He wields more influence over the behavior of men than any president or prime minister.
Catholics will pray. It’s what we do.
Eternal rest grant him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him.
Apr 20 2025
…is to condition the masses never to question or quarrel with the State:
Christopher Dunn was falsely convicted of fatally shooting a 14-year-old in 1991. He was later released after serving over three decades of a life sentence in prison for a crime he did not commit.
So far, this looks like a positive if bittersweet story. Dunn can’t get back the three decades he spent behind bars, but at least he’s free now. But hold on just a moment:
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled this week that Attorney General Andrew Bailey can appeal Dunn’s overturned conviction, according to the Missouri Independent.
[…]
Bailey argued that the state has a legal interest in maintaining its convictions and that allowing Dunn’s exoneration to stand would create distrust in the state’s justice system. The state’s Supreme Court concurred, claiming “the state is an aggrieved party under Missouri’s civil appeals statute and may challenge the judgment,” the Missouri Independent reported.
I added the emphasis.
The State must not be questioned! Its hold on power depends on the willing submission of its subjects. Should the people come to doubt the State’s omniscience, who knows what would follow? No, Comrade, thou shalt not question the Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent State! Its masters would pout.
Do you know what’s hardest about being a freedom-advocating commentator? Resisting the impulse to let it all go! When a State prosecutor can make such a claim in open court, and have the presiding judge deem the State “an aggrieved party,” all the masks are off. The statists no longer feel a need to pretend to care about rights or justice. The English language lacks words adequate to describing such incredible villainy.
The sole nonviolent barrier to such betrayals of justice is the trial by a jury of private citizens. Watch for signs that our would-be masters are maneuvering to do away with it. I’m sure we’ll see them, by and by.
Apr 20 2025
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.[Matthew 28:1-10]
Nearly two millennia have passed since then. Rejoice in the simplicity of it! He promised that he would return from death. He kept his promise. Nothing comparable has occurred since, but then, nothing else really matters.
Happy Easter, Gentle Reader. For he is risen, as he said. May God bless and keep you all.
Apr 19 2025
English contains a wealth of what are colloquially called synonyms but really aren’t. Unfortunately, people who aren’t alert to subtle differences between the actual meanings of words will frequently select the wrong one for their purpose. One of the commonest cases involves the words honesty and candor. These frequently interchanged words are not really interchangeable. For example, here’s honesty in action:
Prosecutor: Mr. Smith, at about 7:35 PM on the night of October 8, 2024, on the corner of Main Street and Grand Avenue in the city of Onteora in the state of New York, did you brutally beat James Johnson to death with an iron pipe while cackling fiendishly, after which you urinated on his corpse before going to the local tavern for a drink?
Smith: Yes.
In contrast, here’s candor:
Interviewer: Mr. Davis, what do you consider your greatest weakness?
Davis: My honesty.
Interviewer: I don’t consider honesty a weakness.
Davis: I don’t give a fuck what you think.
Because of Davis’s misuse of honesty where candor would have been more accurate, the remainder of the interview did not go well. Don’t let this happen to you.
Apr 19 2025
Jacob Couch and his wife Kristen were sitting on a bus bench on the corner of 6th and Broadway in Tucson on the morning of April 5. After a vacation, they traveled by bus from California back home to Alabama, but decided to stop in Tucson first to explore the area.
Shortly after sitting down, a man approached them and started yelling for some reason. Court records say Jacob, the father of two children, then started arguing with the crazed man when tragedy struck.
Police say the man, 25-year-old Tucson resident Daniel Michael, hit Jacob in the neck with what Kristen described as a machete-type knife.
Jacob started bleeding uncontrollably after being slashed in the neck. Jacob’s sister-In-Law, Erica Sims, revealed that the weapon “cut the artery in the back of his neck in half and went so deep that it hit his skull.”
The victim and his attacker:
Jacob Couch is dead. Why is Daniel Michael still alive? Isn’t Arizona a “constitutional carry” state? Was there no armed citizen available to administer summary justice to this miscreant? Or were all the available persons terrified of being called “racists?”
But the article assures us that the murderer is now in custody:
Three days after the incident, officers were able to locate Michael at his home. Documents show during a search warrant investigators found a hatchet in his apartment as well as clothes worn during the incident. Records say when Michael was confronted with surveillance video of him in the area of the scene, he confirmed it was him.
I added the emphasis.
Who’d like to give odds on whether Daniel Michael will become the Left’s next cause celebre? Will he be gifted thousands of dollars through a GoFundMe appeal? Will Black Lives Matter parade for his defense? I suppose we’ll have to wait and see. But one thing is clear: In these United States of America, whites and Asians must avoid blacks, especially young black males.
John Derbyshire has told us. Heed his words.
Apr 19 2025
This comes from my favorite tall but brilliant, fabulously talented and visually stunning example of a placental mammal:
Did you know you can mail potatoes without a container? This delightful information comes from the USPS’s Postal Facts page. As with coconuts, one may mail potatoes simply by writing the destination on the potato, weighing the potato, then paying the appropriate postage for said potato and it can be shipped as-is. The potato will then be conveyed thence to its destination by the hardworking men and women of the United States Postal Service.
Let someone know they are special. Send a tater! Or an SOS.
How could I have lived so many years without knowing that? Thank you, Diogenes my love. This is vital information to one of Irish descent. But I have a question: Can one send said potato Express Mail? I wouldn’t want it to arrive all mushy and covered with “eyes.”
Apr 18 2025
I’m something of a clarity evangelist. I despise people who deliberately muddy the waters of discourse. Yet politics being what it is, there are many such prominent ones. We seldom get a respite from their blather. That’s by design.
Clarity is power’s greatest enemy. To achieve and maintain power, those who want to rule you must confuse you. Else you might realize what has been done to you – what is still being done to you! – and therefore, what you must do.
If the conscious mind has any bedrock need, it is clarity. Yet clarity can be terrible beyond measure. Today we commemorate a day when things became all too clear.
The only true power is total power: power absolute and unbounded. The truly ardent power-luster will accept nothing else. That has an implication from which most of us recoil. In the interests of clarity, let it be stated plainly, once and for all:
George Orwell was magnificently, terrifyingly clear about what power is at its heart:
‘The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.’ He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’
I know you’ve seen that passage before. You may have seen it here; I’m sure I’ve used it, though perhaps not in this context. The logic of power demands either total submission or death.
But the full horror of the Party’s program only becomes clear when O’Brien discloses the intent behind Winston’s “re-education:”
‘Get up,’ said O’Brien. ‘Come here.’
Winston stood opposite him. O’Brien took Winston’s shoulders between his strong hands and looked at him closely.
‘You have had thoughts of deceiving me,’ he said. ‘That was stupid. Stand up straighter. Look me in the face.’
He paused, and went on in a gentler tone: ‘You are improving. Intellectually there is very little wrong with you. It is only emotionally that you have failed to make progress. Tell me, Winston — and remember, no lies: you know that I am always able to detect a lie — tell me, what are your true feelings towards Big Brother?’
‘I hate him.’
‘You hate him. Good. Then the time has come for you to take the last step. You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him.’
For the Party would not allow Winston or any other man to die hating them. That would make him a martyr, and martyrs exemplify the unmaking of power. The martyr is indispensable to possibility of revolution. Therefore, they who hold power must strive to their utmost to avoid creating martyrs.
It’s all so simple! It’s like a beginner’s first class in propositional logic. But Orwell was a genius, and the genius’s necessary qualities include the ability to accept what is terribly clear. Our contemporary power-lusters aren’t nearly as bright or penetrating as was George Orwell.
Neither were those of First-Century Judea.
“Christ was crucified for preaching without a police permit.” — Robert A. Heinlein
Power, in Judea in Christ’s time, was founded on the Judaic religion. At the summit of that religion stood the Sanhedrin, which – with the indulgent cooperation of the Roman occupiers – could decree the death of any man who dared to defy its rule. Rome was perfectly happy to allow the Sanhedrin that power. To rule a great empire requires collaboration with local rulers. Without it, there’s no avoiding the repeated imposition of mass terror and bloodshed through military force.
To the Sanhedrin, Jesus of Nazareth appeared to be a threat to their power. They couldn’t have that, so they contrived his death. The actual executioners were Roman soldiers. Rome wasn’t indulgent enough to allow the Jews to impose capital punishment themselves; that would be taking this “home rule” business a wee bit too far. But when Herod sent Jesus to Pilate, Pilate knew what he had to do to “keep the peace:” specifically, peace between the occupying power and the local power structure.
The Gospel narrative tells us that Jesus knew what was coming. Being as human as he was divine, he feared it. He prayed for “this cup to pass from me.” [Matthew 26:39] Yet he accepted it as his Father’s will. Why?
For Jesus himself had said it:
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. [John 15:12-14]
Jesus’s Crucifixion was the ultimate consequence of the power-lust of the rulers of that place and time. Jesus’s acceptance of His Crucifixion was the final demonstration of his love.
Power and love are antitheses. No one who sincerely loves seeks power. Conversely, no one who seeks power can sincerely love.
Coincidentally and most ironically, the morning brings an irrefutable demonstration of power-lust — sanctimoniously disguised, as it must always be in our time, as a necessity in defense of ideals the writer does not truly hold:
Evil has come to America. The present administration is engaged in barbarism; it has arbitrarily imprisoned its opponents, revoked the visas of thousands of students, imposed taxes upon us without our consent, and seeks to destroy the institutions which oppose it. Its leader has threatened those who produce unfavorable coverage, and suggested that their licenses be revoked. It has deprived us, in many cases, of trial by jury; it has subjected us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and has transported us beyond seas to be imprisoned for pretended offenses. It has scorned the orders of our courts, and threatens to alter fundamentally our form of government. It has pardoned its thugs, and extorted the lawyers who defended its opponents.
If these actions become normal, the government could arrest anyone and deport them to prison in a foreign land, without hope of redress, for no reason. It is nothing less than the total abdication of rule of law in this country. There is no guard or protection against it. If this theory prevails, then it is the end of America as a free nation.
I do not wish for this essay to be a mere catalogue of outrages. The conduct of the present administration is as well known to you as it is to myself, and can be understood by any sensible person. On it, no further comment is ventured.
What remains for us to decide is when we fight. If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can effect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them. None of us wish for war, but if the present administration wishes to destroy the nation I would accept war rather than see it perish. I hope that you would choose the same.
In my most terrible nightmares, I could not have made matters clearer. Writer Nicholas Decker, of course, is a Leftist. He’s a Leftist of the 1984 / O’Brien stripe, albeit without the deeper understanding O’Brien displays in the passages I quoted above. I imagine he fancies himself a revolutionary theorist. But the central point must not be obscured by incidentals: he wants power, and he sees mass murder as the only route to it.
In that regard, he’s in tune with Bill Ayres’s Weather Underground:
I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.
And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.
And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”
Twenty-five million people.
I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.
And they were dead serious.
The logic of power leads there and only there. Ayres and his collaborators knew where they were headed. Nicholas Decker has embraced their method unflinchingly. He has made it clear that the Left will stop at nothing. For his candor, we owe him our thanks.
Gentle Reader, if I had been asked to compose a paean to the sort of villainy depicted above, I don’t think I could have done it. Nicholas Decker has provided us a terrible clarity, indeed – and on the day we commemorate Jesus of Nazareth’s sacrifice of himself in irrefutable demonstration of the exact opposite, at that. Could the Left’s absolute hostility to Christianity have been made that clear in any other way?
Power or love? On this Good Friday in the Year of Our Lord 2025, let us choose wisely… and as far as possible, from love.
May God bless and keep you all.
Yours in Christ,
Fran
