Dang, I Hate the New WordPress!

So much so, I’ve returned to Blogger for my longer stuff.

Life has settled down. PT is continuing (causing me to feel like a domestic violence victim twice a week), the tax information has been entered in a sheet, just waiting for DH to do his part, and I’m gradually getting back on track with the house maintenance.

The weather has been great, the sun shines (most days) – Life is Very, Very Good.


     Everybody’s taking surveys and polls lately. Seems that way, anyway. So I figured it’s time to survey the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch on a few subjects of current importance.

     For each of the statements below, please indicate, on a scale of 1 to 5, whether you:

  1. Disagree strongly;
  2. Disagree somewhat;
  3. Are indifferent;
  4. Agree somewhat;
  5. Agree strongly.

     Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey.

  • Hell is other people.
  • You can’t argue with “they.”
  • Too many people know too much.
  • Stupidity is always a capital crime.
  • You are special, just like everybody else.
  • A bad day of fishing beats a good day of work.
  • There’s a fine line between genius and madness.
  • Communication is only possible between equals.
  • You’re not supposed to understand the income tax.
  • The more people I get to know, the more I like my dog.
  • Build a foolproof system and they’ll build a bigger fool.
  • Age and cunning will always beat youth and enthusiasm.
  • Cassandra didn’t get half the kicking around she deserved.
  • Never believe anything political unless it is officially denied.
  • The only time you have too much ammo is when you’re on fire.
  • It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
  • No problem is so big or complicated that it can’t be run away from.
  • Blessed is he that expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.
  • Everyone should believe in something. I believe I’ll have another drink.
  • Money can’t buy happiness, but it makes for a well-upholstered misery.
  • To shield men from the consequences of folly is to fill the world with fools.
  • No one wants your opinion; they want their opinion to come from your mouth.
  • No life is completely pointless; at worst, one can always serve as a warning to others.
  • In any organization there will be one man, hidden by the involutions of bureaucracy and hierarchy, who knows exactly what’s going on. The mission of the Organization Man is to find him and kill him.
  • Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!

Concerning The Judicial Lynching Of Derek Chauvin

     This only just sprang to mind:

     “We are not fighting against single individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. Do not look in materials you have gathered for evidence that a suspect acted or spoke against the Soviet authorities. The first question you should ask him is what class he belongs to, what is his origin, education, profession. These questions should determine his fate. This is the essence of the Red Terror.” – Martin Y. Latsis

     Derek Chauvin was a police officer – a white police officer. He had the temerity to arrest and restrain George Floyd, a felon who was hopped up to the eyeballs on fentanyl – a black felon. That was all the racial mobs needed to go rioting.

     America has waited a whole year for an explanation of how looting and burning the establishments of uninvolved businessmen was supposed to conduce to “justice” for George Floyd. We’ve also been waiting for an explanation of why the police forces in the riot-torn cities have declined to act against the rioters. I expect we’ll be waiting quite a while longer.

Capturing The Moment

     Were you under the impression that the United States is not currently in a state of civil war?

     All links are courtesy of the invaluable Gateway Pundit.

     This is America today:
     A nation where “activists” claim the “right” to rampage through cities, burning, looting, and occasionally murdering without legal penalty, in the name of “justice.”
     A nation where a sitting legislator can preconvict a police officer on trial for his life, demand riots and widespread vandalism should the jury decide otherwise, and not be censured by her colleagues.
     A nation where another sitting legislator can demand punishment for uninvolved policemen, simply because they were present at the time, and similarly suffer no censure.
     A nation torn asunder by racially-based insurrection.
     A nation in which good men sit wringing their hands while all the above transpires.

     But don’t you dare dissent from the “justice” of all the above. The death threats would be immediate. Tomi Lahren could tell you.

     I predict that the moment I’ve captured here will have one of two consequences: either it will galvanize a live-ammo counter-revolution to take the nation back, restore order, and hang the provocateurs responsible for the current chaos; or it will be ignored except for a few words of demurral from “cooler heads.” There are always “cooler heads,” you know. They’re the “moderates,” the “reasonable men” who insist on a “compromise” that won’t compel them to act against what’s plainly evil.

     (Edmund Burke, where are you when we need you?)

     We’re heading for a state of affairs in which those “cooler heads” are likely to be mounted on pikes – an outcome that will make this scenario one we’ll wish we’d attained instead.

     That’s it for the moment, Gentle Reader. At any rate, it’s all I can stomach. It’s time to clean and oil all the guns. I have a feeling I’ll be needing them soon.

Thirty minutes of eloquence, honesty and courage.

I have great respect for this man.

Paging Alexandre Solzhenitsyn

First, I would like to thank Francis for inviting me to become one of the authors on his blog – I am deeply honored by this trust he’s placed in me.  I will attempt to post at least weekly as I also do write for Granite Grok, a NH-based conservative blog – if politics is local (thank you Tip O’Neil) then I need to have a hand in that as well.  (With Francis’ stated permission, my last piece there, “Ideological Superorganisms”, is here.)

Also, please forgive any squirrely formatting; I think I’ll need some help on learning how to indent quotations properly.


I have only touched on his seminal tome, The Gulag Archipelago, though it is on my list of to be read books, the stack of which is growing faster than my available time to read.  But his observation, above, echoes another fantastic quote:

Both have a similar theme: People who are convinced they are doing good will rationalize their evil deeds. So now our host has an essay, There Is No Time, in which he revisits his old blog:

On March 2, 3, and 4 of this year, the Texas Academy of Sciences held its annual conclave, at which it awarded a certain Eric Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas, with its Distinguished Texas Scientist Award. Whatever Dr. Pianka’s achievements as a researcher or educator might be, they were overshadowed, for the moment at least, by his proposition that 90% of the human race must die (bolding mine for emphasis):

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.

 Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

 The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

If you haven’t, please read the whole thing he wrote – the quotes from this quoted man’s students should be shudder-inducing, as are other quotes cited by our host through the post.

In my resumption of my faith and its growth from that seed-crystal dropped in a supersaturated solution – my soul clearly having been eager for my conscious resumption of it – I have seen His hand in so many things.  Right now, as I have been invited to write here, is another… for I found several other blogs and articles in my morning surfing that are spot-on relevant.  Coincidence? Certainly timely.

One, also cited by our host though I came to it independently, is A Repost On Agenda 21 or Whatever They’re Doing Now.  In this post Silicon Graybeard also revisits an older post in which he has these chilling quotes, and his own thought (italics reversed to highlight the block quote):

  • CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
  • Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Gee, the moderate guy only wants to kill off more than 95% of the human race.  See the current world population is around 7 billion people.  For Dave Foreman, 100 million out of 7 billion is 100 out of 7000 or 1.4 %.  At 300 million, Ted Turner would generously let 4.3% live.

You have to wonder at the mentality that prompts a person to entertain, let alone smile about the prospect of eliminating so many people.  That calls humanity a scourge on the planet.  Don’t forget Bill Gates-of-Hell’s comment about using vaccines to reduce the population.  That echoes the Georgia Guidestones’ famous pledge:

Hearkening back to a question, paraphrased but expanded, that I asked on my former blog and multiple times in multiple venues:

Imagine that you believed, truly believed, that unless humanity cut CO2 emissions to zero and vastly reduced mankind’s population, that all life on earth was doomed.  Faced with that belief, that certainty, what would you not do to stop that from happening?

In wanting, and working towards, a slaughter of living people that dwarfs Socialism/Communism, that dwarfs the ravages of Islam, remember: These people believe they are doing good.  And, in parallel, those who oppose them are evil for stopping their efforts to save the world.

In a more Covid-specific post, We cannot save them, Surak states this (bolding added):

The experts with whom she speaks expect a decrease in fertility (already happening), and an increasing number of deaths and disabilities from inflammatory and auto-immune diseases, over time ranges from the next few months to the next several years. The cost in lives these experts forecast is unlike anything humanity has experienced since the medieval Black Death. The survivors will be crippled economically by the burden of supporting the disabled.

In watching this derangement, particularly in light of the above, I will make a prediction that the timeframe for the depopulation to occur is more like months than years.  Why do I predict this?  Two reasons:

First, Murphy is a bastard.  Corona viruses are notorious for mutations, and given the possibility for it to mutate to something that would trigger vaccinated people to drop before the Globalists are ready, they’re in a race to get it into everyone so that if (when) that happens, there’s nothing that can be done, and not sufficient people who have refused to make a difference. Imagine if, thanks to a “timely” mutation, people who have had The Jab start dying at visibly greater rates than those who have abstained, and in numbers that cannot be “debunked away”. IMHO this is their biggest fear.

Second, people are waking up.  Not many, but I am seeing – for example, on LinkedIn – more and more people questioning The Narrative about masks and The Jab.  My feed on LinkedIn is full of such doubts, and people are getting canceled left and right there as they question The Narrative on Bill Gates of Hell’s platform – and so, too, are people questioning why reasoned arguments by qualified people, supported by research and other evidence, cannot be shared.  People are questioning why they cannot ask questions.

Consider this quote on LinkedIn:

The Resistance is growing. Gatherings I’ve been at in WNY lately have been fairly large and no one wore a mask.

A local Boston-based morning talk show was hammering on this in the morning as I drove the kids to school. And one caller pointed out – paraphrased from memory – that part of the desperation to compel everyone to have The Jab is the secret knowledge of the Left that this is, in fact, a depopulation strategy, and knowing that Conservatives are far more likely to resist getting it, they’re afraid of being vastly outnumbered when the die-off begins. Food for thought, certainly.

I go into most stores maskless and, aside from the occasional hostile look, nobody questions it. I am seeing more and more people without them – still a minority, but awareness is building in general.  Someone with whom I was speaking the other day, live and in person, was not aware that the vaccine makers are legally not liable for any damage or harm their injections cause. 

They were shocked, being totally unaware of this; I had them look it up on their phone and the look of horror on their faces as they realized they could develop problems (never mind being dead) and nothing could be done legally to obtain even a dime in compensation… that’s a new apostate from the Covidian faith, for sure.

In general, more and more anecdotes of harm – including deaths – are being shared.  E.g., here, and here, and here.  People are starting to question.  Anecdotal data, like rumors of increased miscarriages and lowered fertility, are starting to come out despite frenetic debunking articles being spun out within days of the initial reports.

So I expect the pathological & manic push for this to go to ludicrous speed – down to two year olds!  As will the push for vaccine passports regardless of what resistance The People put up.  And then the culling onslaught will start – whether by plan and design to reduce the population, or by Mother Nature’s mutational nemesis following on the globalist hubris.

Hashem help us all.

Extinction And Rebirth

     We called them “the media.” Some of us knew why: they were the middlemen between us and the information we sought. They formed a conduit between events of significance and those of us who wanted to know about them. We trusted them to pass the information about those events to us, undistorted and untainted by anyone’s personal opinions. And for a while, it seemed that our trust was justified.

     Yes, they competed with one another. The collection and transmission of information is a business like any other. Their reporters slaved to keep up with events of significance, both in the United States and outside it. Their spokesmen strove to present the appearance of absolute integrity and unquestionable credibility. Their producers sweated over which stories should receive top billing, and which ones could reasonably be printed on the inside pages or left to the bottom of the hour. And the ones that appeared soberest, whose priorities struck us as the most sensible, led the race for readers, viewers, subscribers, and advertisers.

     Those media are dead. Their hour passed some time ago; it’s difficult to pinpoint it. What we call “the media” today are not information middlemen. Indeed, more often than not they’re the fabricators of the stories they “report.” In place of the information conduits of yore, we have activists, propagandists, and assorted lowlifes whose priority is the incitement of anger against those who dare to differ with their dogmas, and the destruction of their privacy.

     But Americans still want information, quite as much as “The Prisoner’s” Number Two. They want that information to be timely and accurate. They also want access to a range of opinions about that information. And so, with the aid of the World Wide Web, new conduits are springing forth. One of those is called Substack.

     Substack is a content-neutral platform open to writers who wish to be out from under the editorial tyranny of “the media.” There is no intermediary between the Substack writer and his audience. Some publish their wares free of charge; others ask a subscription fee, of which they get by far the greater part. Several well known writers, formerly employees of various conventional organs, have adopted Substack for their outlet and are doing very well by it.

     To “the media,” this is intolerable blasphemy. And so various of “the media’s” luminaries have lined up to defame it. Mark Judge deposeth and saith:

     Of course, the mainstream media are fuming. In the leftist remnant of the New Republic, Alex Shepard warned that Substack’s “lax — which is to say, nearly nonexistent — content moderation policies have also come under fire. Transphobes … have found a home at Substack. Others have used their newsletters to launch harassment campaigns against other journalists.”

     By “harassment,” Shepard means that journalists like Greenwald criticize the leftist and corporate media. Today’s journalists are coddled crybabies, unused to anyone having the freedom to push back.

     Furthermore, “the media” dislike dissent from their preferred social and political positions – sufficiently so to have become activists who harass and endanger entirely private persons who differ with them. Consider the following attempts to intimidate persons who’ve contributed to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund:

  • WAVY.com: Norfolk PD investigating report that officer donated to Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund
  • Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: Police officers and public officials donated to Kyle Rittenhouse defense, according to reports
  • Summit News: Journalist Slammed For Paying Home Visit to Utah Paramedic Who Donated $10 to Kyle Rittenhouse

     The practice is reported on further at the Gateway Pundit. And we have a bit more from Mark Judge:

     At the height of the Kavanaugh nonsense reporters chased me to the beach. While I was sleeping they went through my car. The craziest rumors peddled by criminals were published as fact.

     This is activism, not journalism.

     What will follow is unclear. My hope is that the rising tide of dislike for “the media” will swell still further, resulting in their marginalization or demise. If, in concert with that, the alternative media, in which editorial staffs are unable to censor or bias the stories and opinions told by journalists, should rise to prominence, we will benefit from one of the best consequences of market competition: the defeat of a grossly inferior product by a greatly superior one.

Good Ideas Always Resurface

     A long, long time ago, back when there was music on AM radio and I was a wee proto-engineer who spent his days correcting other people’s errors in Fortran (Fortran-66, mind you), a colleague commenting on a promotion we in the Computing Center were attempting urged us all to “Think visual.” He exhorted us to unite our promotion with images that would catch people’s attention and remain in their minds. And he, being a practitioner of what he preached, came up with several that impressed the hell out of us.

     These days, no one “thinks visual” better than the widely and justly celebrated Chris Muir, cartoonist extraordinaire. His offering of this morning is one of his best ever:

     I trust that the significance will not be lost on the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch. And with that I must leave you, as I’m still trying to complete Saturday’s chores. So do have a nice day.

There Is No Time

     Today will be a very busy day for me, for reasons beyond the scope of this rant. And so, as befits the Grand Ironic Tradition we faithfully maintain here at Liberty’s Torch, I have far too much to write about. Worse, I must begin by reposting an old piece: one which first appeared fifteen years ago, at the late, lamented Eternity Road:


     Just a few days ago was the first anniversary of the judicially sanctioned torture-murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo by her soi-disant husband, Michael Schiavo. During that gruesome process, your Curmudgeon penned a cri de coeur that, had he had his druthers, would have been read by every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth.

     To cut to the chase: it wasn’t. At least, it wasn’t taken to heart.

     On March 2, 3, and 4 of this year, the Texas Academy of Sciences held its annual conclave, at which it awarded a certain Eric Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas, with its Distinguished Texas Scientist Award. Whatever Dr. Pianka’s achievements as a researcher or educator might be, they were overshadowed, for the moment at least, by his proposition that 90% of the human race must die:

     “Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.

     Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

     Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

     “This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

     So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

     6.5 billion humans is too many.

     In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

     The solution?

     A 90 percent reduction.

     That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

     “[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

     Let’s get one thing straight before we proceed: Anyone who agrees with Dr. Pianka had better keep his hands where your Curmudgeon can see them.

     An attitude like Pianka’s can only come from an ivory tower. One must be utterly isolated from real life and real people to contemplate their extinction with such cheerful equanimity. Yet according to the linked story, Pianka is well supplied with admirers and acolytes:

     Most of Pianka’s former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like “the most incredible class I ever had” and “Pianka is a GOD!”

     Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience “had not thought seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting.” But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

     An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction:

     “[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!” she wrote. “I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”

     Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isn’t the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

     “Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it’s the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation,” she said.

     Of course, “this problem of overpopulation” is a completely impersonal matter. It has no bearing on the identities or futures of identifiable individuals. Were Miss McConnell asked if she expected to be among the doomed 90% or the fortunate 10%, what do you suppose she would say? Is it not likely that in her unspoken thoughts, she assumes herself to be among the architects of the annihilation, rather than an honoree?

     Your Curmudgeon calls this the Commissar Complex. It puts him in mind of an anecdote from the 1848 French Revolution, when a coal-carrier scoffed at a lady of the upper classes: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now. I’ll go in silks and you’ll carry coal.” They who imagine the remaking of the world after their own preferences are like that.

     Never imagine that they aren’t serious. Consider the following:

     “The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'” — philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

     “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet….Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” — biologist David M. Graber, in review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989.

     But in keeping with the “death cults” motif, your Curmudgeon must emphasize the underlying attitude: Superior individuals, disdainful of the common herd and disinclined to rub elbows with them, theorize about the management of the hoi polloi while sipping Cointreau. Such management connotes a shepherd-to-sheep relation. Certainly it would include a willingness to “thin the herd” at need — with need determined solely by the self-nominated master intellects in the closed circle.

     “Kill five-billion-plus people because their continued existence offends us? Why not? Haven’t we acceded to the deaths of millions of unborn children in the name of convenience? Haven’t we argued that to let a child be born with a birth defect, or against its mother’s will, is an act of ‘wrongful life?’ Don’t we have such luminaries as Peter Singer to justify infanticide as a form of retroactive abortion? Haven’t we condemned a president and his administration specifically for liberating two nations from monsters who were slaughtering tens of thousands each year? Haven’t we argued in the highest chambers of power that ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,’ and that rocks and moss and tundra are more precious than the human lives the oil beneath them could sustain? When we argued for those things, did anyone rise to stop us? Who could stop us now?”

     Gentle Reader, I wish I had preserved for your edification the batch of hate mail I received after posting that piece. It was an undifferentiated mass of viciousness. You would have thought I’d come out in favor of executing homosexuals, or discriminating against rhythm-challenged Negroes, or the designated hitter rule. But if memory serves, not one of my correspondents dared to address the central thread of Pianka’s lectures — that the death of 90% of the human race would be a good thing — even though Pianka himself has openly said so.

     Why would a hate-mailer address that thesis? It’s so clearly anti-human that only someone who actively hates other people and desires their destruction would adopt it. So anyone determined to defend Pianka, but equally resolved to represent himself as a “good guy,” must treat Pianka’s thesis as “off the table.” He must assail the one who dares to express shock and horror that anyone could espouse such an idea as somehow evil.

     Doesn’t that suggest that the hate-mailer finds the thesis worthy? Doesn’t it bring to mind the faux-equality of the Parisian coal-carrier — the “Commissar Complex” mindset I alluded to in the above piece?

     Which brings me to my third citation: a look at one of Pianka’s more overtly genocidal fellow-travelers:

     This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words.

     He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:

     What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

     He sees America as the root of the problem:

     The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

     He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:

     Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth.

     We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves.

     A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

     As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society as a whole:

     Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

     Linkola’s ground assumption is that the current penetration of environmental alarmism is an adequate popular basis for his recommendations. He’s wrong, of course; most Americans, at least, would not consent to having nine-tenths of their number liquidated and the survivors subjected to rigid totalitarian rule for any reason, much less to “save the planet.” But his aim isn’t truly to bring about mass death and totalitarian rule for the sake of the environment; it’s to use “the environment” as the rationale for mass death and totalitarian rule. Indeed, he hardly bothers to disguise it.

     The disturbing things about this vile notion are:

  • That there are many, including many in the United States, who would call Linkola’s unsubstantiated assumptions of ecological crisis, like those of the aforementioned Eric Pianka, rational and defensible;
  • That the “us” group now promulgates those assumptions as dogmas beyond question;
  • That those dogmas are now the overt basis of public policies at all levels of government;
  • That anyone who gives these obscenities true coloration — i.e., as expressions of hatred and contempt for Mankind — will come in for the full vituperative, calumnious force of the “us” group, most particularly via their mouthpieces in the media.

     Do you disagree? Read this, and tell me if you still do.


     Did you enjoy that, Gentle Reader? Did you get the impression that there are…persons who regard you as “fat, human biomass” whose proper fate is extermination? To make room for “wilderness,” of course. That’s so much more important than your life or your right to it!

     But restoring a planet-wide wilderness is just one excuse, isn’t it? I mean, there are so many reasons to exterminate us:

  • We’re “racists.”
  • We’re “fascists.”
  • We’re “xenophobes.”
  • We’re “climate deniers.”
  • We’re “white supremacists.”
  • We’re “homophobes” and “transphobes.”
  • We’re Christians.

     I’m sure the list could be extended, but I only allow my gorge to rise so far on a Sunday in April. I think the point is clear enough as it stands.

     But hark! What have we here? Our favorite Graybeard has posted a piece on “Agenda 21” and related matters, and it’s a beauty. Si’s Sunday punch:

     That’s right, “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever they call it this week, is the basis for mass murder on a scale that Mao, Pol Pot, or Hitler could never aspire to. You see, to quote from this piece at End of The American Dream, (source missing, 4/14/21) the population must be reduced:

  • CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
  • Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
  • Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

     Gee, the moderate guy only wants to kill off more than 95% of the human race. See the current world population is around 7 billion people. For Dave Foreman, 100 million out of 7 billion is 100 out of 7000 or 1.4 %. At 300 million, Ted Turner would generously let 4.3% live.


     I’m sure nearly all my Gentle Readers have seen such sentiments before. After all, that piece from Eternity Road goes back fifteen years. Back then, it excited a lot of controversy…and a lot of hate mail. What I want to stress today is that those ideas have been mainstreamed. Worse, they now represent the thinking of quite a lot of people in the corridors of power. Agenda 21 is founded on them. They are the credo of the worldwide Death Cults.

     The bottom line is plain and open: If you dissent to any degree from the radical Left’s positions and agenda, have no doubt of this: you will be classified as “fat, human biomass” to be extinguished.

     Think about that for a moment while I fetch more coffee.


     We read and watch the reports of rampant looting and violence in our cities…and we sit, appalled.

     We hear the Left’s mouthpieces denounce anyone who stands against them, threatening them with everything but canonization…and we shake our heads.

     We read of the advance of totalitarianism in Europe, Canada, and parts of these United States…and we express disbelief.

     The Left has taken the offensive. It’s seized our federal government and many state and local governments. It dominates our entertainment industries. It’s controlled the major media for many years. It owns the schools, from kindergarten all the way to the highest of the universities. And it is advancing wherever it stands forth.

     We cannot win – nay; we cannot survive — if we restrict ourselves to “playing defense.”

     Not long ago, Matt Bracken left this as a reply to something I said at Gab.com:

     “In the absence of orders, find a Communist and kill it.”

     Sounds harsh, doesn’t it? Even Communists have a right to life, don’t they? I mean, if they have freedom of expression, they must have a right to life!

     Time was. Before they went on the attack. But matters have “progressed” too far. They’re openly maneuvering for the power to kill, enslave, and expropriate without let or hindrance. The violence in the cities is merely the most visible manifestation.

     Note that in nearly all the riot-torn cities, the “forces of order” have stood aside while the rioters have rampaged. When they’ve acted, it’s usually been against people who dared to oppose the rioters with weapons, such as the McCloskeys of St. Louis. That puts the “forces of order” on the side of the rioters and despoilers: Communists de facto, despite their badges and uniforms.

     Think about what’s being done to Kyle Rittenhouse, because he used lethal force to defend himself from a potentially lethal assault by a marauding gang. Put yourself in his place…because as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, if we remain on the defensive while the Left presses its attack, you will be.

     For a summing-up, hearken to the indispensable David DeGerolamo:

     In the absence of orders, go find a Communist and kill it.

     Not a very Christian sentiment unless we are at war.

     I believe we are in a religious war now that seeks to destroy our culture and our religion. Only you can account for your actions that you will take to save your children from evil.

     The war is religious, cultural, political, racial, and creedal. No mercy is being shown to anyone the Left deems an enemy. The time is past when we could afford to wring our hands, fret, and do nothing else. Indeed, it passed long ago.

     Think about it.

Know the agenda.

The bottom line is this: America is the primary target of the globalists because we are one of the only countries with the means and the numbers to stop them and the [Great] Reset. Until they are removed from the equation they will continue to throw crisis after crisis at us in order to wear us down and force us to accept totalitarianism. Do not get too comfortable in the fact that the pandemic agenda is failing here; stay alert and continue to organize your communities.

Globalists Will Need Another Crisis In America As Their Reset Agenda Fails.” By Brandon Smith, ZeroHedge, 4/16/21.

Good question.

The editorial board of the Washington Post recently advised Zelensky:

“Mr. Zelensky now has the opportunity to forge a partnership with Mr. Biden that could decisively advance Ukraine’s attempt to break free from Russia and join the democratic West. He should seize on it.”

So, now that we’ve shown who is doing the pushing here, let’s turn to the final takeaway from Heritage Foundation master strategists. Tsereteli and Carafano come right out and say “countries left outside of NATO will remain targets of Russian aggression and manipulations.” So, the purpose of all this supposed spread of militaristic-based democracy is to expand NATO to [too?]? I mean, seriously. Washington is not reaching out with the Peace Corps to shore up a budding Eastern European democracy. The United States is kidnapping another former Soviet republic on the way to the big score. My country has military bases in almost every country in the world, has had more wars than the Mongols, and spends more on weapons than everybody else combined – but Russia is being aggressive! Who believes this bullshit?

One Man Stands in the Way of NATO’s Run Onward to Moscow.” By Phil Butler, ZeroHedge, 4/17/21.

Pushing The Outside Of The Credibility Envelope

     Courtesy of Weasel Zippers, we have this literally incredible story about Joe Biden’s “popularity:”

     Joe Biden approaches the 100-day mark of his presidency with a relatively strong job approval rating and the public continuing to express positive views of the coronavirus aid package passed by Congress last month. Moreover, nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) say the Biden administration has done an excellent or good job managing the manufacture and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines to Americans.

     Currently, 59% approve of the way Biden is handling his job as president, while 39% disapprove. Biden’s job approval rating has increased modestly from 54% in March. Biden’s job approval is comparable to several of his predecessors – including Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush – and much higher than Donald Trump’s in April 2017.

     Hm. Let’s see, now:

  • Biden is plainly sick and senile.
  • His down-ticket “coattails” were negative.
  • He was “elected” by a barrage of election-law violations.
  • He and his family are currently being investigated for corruption;
  • He’s unwilling or unable to hold a press conference at which he’ll take questions.

     Moreover, his policies have already:

  • Worsened unemployment;
  • Embarrassed the U.S. internationally;
  • Grotesquely inflated the price of oil and gas;
  • Encouraged regional expansionism by Red China;
  • And provoked a new flood of illegal aliens into the United States.

     That casts a smidgen of doubt upon this PEW “report,” n’est ce pas?

     What we have here is a media-supplied lie to buttress the lies that put Biden in the Oval Office. After all, a “president” elected by the votes of 81 million Americans (an estimated 59 million of whom were actual, living American citizens) must be popular, at least during his “honeymoon” period. As the media were jointly and severally responsible for Biden’s installation in the White House – and installation, as with a mindless service gadget, is exactly the right word – they must continue to buttress the Big Lie of Biden’s “legitimate election” with whatever other lies are required to support that earlier deceit.

     But the credibility of the media and the various polling companies is already questionable. How much can this new lie about Biden’s “higher than Donald Trump” popularity persuade a public that’s suffering the consequences of the Biden Usurpation – a public that has already lost much of its former faith in the major media and the demonstrably partisan pollsters? Is it a vain stroke in a losing cause?

     Winning or losing, it’s all of a piece – and it won’t stop until the Biden figurehead is “de-installed” from the Oval Office.

Misaligned incentives.

From where I sit, people aren’t stupid. They may make dumb decisions but these [are] maximized thanks to the misaligned incentives of a corrupt monetary system. Absent consequences for dumb decisions, people will continue to make them until they can’t. And yet our feudal overlords [think] there is no limit to this.[1]

Apparently the Chinese are considering a digital yuan with the lovely control possibilities inherent with that. As for misaligned incentives, it is possible for digital currency (without an ancillary physical component) to come with or have added in an expiration date SHMG to ensure that people will spend their “money” and keep money velocity high and stimulus stimming. Real hamster in a wheel incentives.

Compare and contrast with the U.S. approach which is to penalize saving with rock bottom interest rates and thereby force savers into risk on equities, hard assets, and all manner of misinvested fluff with a giant helping of inflation thanks to criminal congressional and Fed fiscal and monetary wrecking ball initiatives.

There’s no Chinese digital yuan expiration date as of breakfast this morning (or digital yuan that I know of for that matter) but there’s a boatload of monetary debasement going on in the U.S. The actual destruction of the very definition of money as, in part, a store of value has been decided upon by our New Aristrocrats who occupy the Olympian heights of knowing how to manage our lives. MMT, bitchez.

Mr. Luongo points out in his article that where money is concerned “betraying the trust of the people you govern at such a fundamental level is a breach that creates real, lasting change.” And more and more coercion is necessary to keep people down on the farm of acquiescence. In the debased moral and intellectual climate in which we subsist at the moment absolutely no one has the faintest clue how the forthcoming massive political upheaval is going to play out. The Norman Rockwell option is probably not in the minds of a whole lot of people and people who don’t know whether the moon is larger than the sun aren’t likely to be coming up with elegant political solutions of any kind. Just saying. As the Chinese expression goes, it’s easy to mount a tiger but somewhat more difficult to dismount. Or, more precisely, dismount and remain intact.

The unspeakable tragedy of the West is that its ruling elites came to pursue their own financial interests AND idiot social ideas rather than to govern with the interests of the people as their first priority. Now they have created a ticking time bomb of fury in the hearts of the deplorables. “Too clever by half” doesn’t begin to describe the damage they have caused. (Cue Hillary cackle.)

For decades the United States government has poured trillions of dollars into stupid wars to vindicate NO interest of the nation. It has poured trillions of dollars into creating and maintaining a dependent class that is a stellar source of crime and political and social pathology. The United States of Baltimore. When millions of Americans have been out of work or worked at two jobs or in nothingburger jobs with no future, it has assiduously labored to import millions of foreigners to steal jobs, start competing business, send billions in remittances to their home (sic) countries, distort our elections, bankrupt hospitals, populate our prisons, and otherwise become a welfare-consuming class of their own. The government has crippled industrial America, it has celebrated massive election theft, and transformed freedom of speech into a privilege revocable at the whim of anonymous soy boys and feminist freaks at war with nature itself. As I like to say, EVERY decision the government makes is precisely the WRONG decision. Days of Our Lives.

So this started out as an examination of the danger of fiddling with one basic measure of human life — the value of the money people have in their pocket. But, as with money, so with everything else. It’s as though an entire civilization chose to disregard any and all standards or turn every measuring stick into something made out of rubber but which shrinks when the temperature rises or the winds blow.

The aristocracy may have been slightly out of touch in 18th-century France but they were giants of insight in comparison to American “progressives” and race baiters.

Somewhere out there is a reasonable facsimile of Joan of Arc. I hate to hang my hopes on divine intervention but increasingly that looks like our remaining option. The women seem to have the greater insight and spirit these days according to my shallow perception. So my bet’s on the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green, Ann Coulter, Laura Loomer, Katie Hopkins, Whatsherface, Tulsi Gabbard, Kimberly Klacik, Candace Owens, Marine Le Pen, Melissa Carone, or Bronx Tina. Hand salute to some of the guys as well but the women really seem to stand out.

[1] “Luongo: The Digital Yuan, Proof Of Guns, & The Expiration Of Money.” By Tom Luongo, ZeroHedge, 4/16/21.

How the world would be better without police.

The Babylon Bee deftly skewers the ever-expanding moron population as usual:

7. All problems in the black community will go away – Everything wrong in the inner city is the cops’ fault. If the cops go, everything will be solved. It’s just that simple!

Check out the other six ways here.

FLASH! Breaking News!

     The super-secret investigators of Liberty’s Torch have made a shocking discovery. Anthony Fauci, for more than a year the federal government’s most recognizable face as regards all things COVID-19, has been revealed as a high executive of the Umbrella Corporation:

     RACCOON CITY: Earlier today, Anthony Fauci was overheard deep in conversation with Albert Wesker, CEO of the Umbrella Corporation. He was heard to apologize for producing “this feeble piece of shit,” by which he apparently meant the COVID-19 virus, rather than succeeding in producing the hypothesized T-virus through which Umbrella had hoped to gain complete control of the world.

     Wesker made passing reference to a “Dr. Isaacs,” who is apparently continuing research into the refinement of the virus under strict security standards. However he did not say anything that would indicate the degree of progress made to date. At that point a security executive whom Wesker addressed as “Alice” appeared and spirited them out of range of our directional microphones. Men in black suits and aviator sunglasses then descended upon our investigators and led them away for “sanitizing.” The home office hasn’t heard from them since, but we continue to monitor the environs.

     We here at Liberty’s Torch regard this story as “developing.”

Transitions In Thought

     The history of human thought has not been one of monotonic advance. There have been times and places where material rationality — i.e., the use of the methods of the physical sciences to investigate the properties of the physical world – has attempted to supplant aspects of thought that those methods cannot address. One such period was the European Enlightenment, which for a while broke free from its Christian origins and threatened to destroy the connection between reason and faith.

     That last sentence probably has a few Gentle Readers scratching their heads. What possible connection could there be between reason, which plumbs the causes of the events we observe in our temporal universe, and faith, which adopts propositions without conclusive proof? To the modern, “scientific” mind, there appears a deep gulf between them. Yet that is a relatively new attitude: about three hundred fifty years old.

     The following is from Diane Moczar’s book The Church Under Attack: an incisive look at such attacks and the myths that have been perpetuated about them:

     One other point must be stressed if we are to appreciate some of the truly revolutionary consequences of the changes that began in the seventeenth century, and it has to do with the very definition of science. For the Greeks and their Western cultural heirs, science meant “certain knowledge through causes” and included all types of investigation that produce certitude. Ancient and medieval thinkers took as the object of their study all of reality; not just the study of nature, but theology, philosophy, ethics, politics, and many other disciplines were called sciences. The sciences were arranged in a hierarchy according to their objects. Natural science was the lowest of the sciences because it dealt only with material things, while the sciences dealing with man, such as psychology and ethics, were higher. All these disciplines, however, deal with things that change. There were other sciences, higher still in the classical hierarchy, that deal with things that do not change: with being itself and with God. We call these sciences metaphysics and theology. Different methods were used for each discipline, but all were considered sciences, and they were approached through their causes.

     This question of causality may seem a bit difficult, but it is crucial to understanding the gulf that opened in the Western mind, beginning in the seventeenth century, between how earlier thinkers had approached reality and how modern man looks at it. The Greeks and their intellectual descendants approached anything they wanted to know through four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. They used the example of a statue to illustrate the operation of the causes. The material cause of a statue of Zeus is the marble from which it is made; its formal cause is the shape it takes, as an image of the god; the efficient cause is the sculptor who imposes the form on the marble; the final cause — the ultimate one, governing all the rest — is the purpose for which the statue is made: to be set up in a temple, for instance. In analyzing the operation of these causes in the objects they studied, the ancients accepted the fact that for most of the things they observed they would be able to determine only the first three causes; physics, biology, and astronomy, for instance, are incapable of providing information about final causality — their ultimate origin and purpose. For answers to those questions, the scientist turned to the higher sciences of metaphysics and theology.

     Now how does the thinking of a modern scientist differ from what I have just described? It would seem to diverge in almost every way. To begin with, only the study of material things is now considered science, and it is generally much more highly esteemed than philosophy, theology, or any other field that the Greeks would have put at the top of their list. No modern thinker would consider philosophy or theology sciences or think of them as productive of any type of certitude whatever. In fact, a major consequence of the Scientific Revolution was the divorce of natural science from philosophy and theology and its eventual increase in status to the most highly valued field of study.

     What about the four causes? Modern scientists still consider the matter and form of the things they investigate, as well as the proximate causes that affect them. What they repudiate, out of a sort of unspoken agnosticism, is final causality. It is ironic that what most interested Greek and Christian scholars was the true purpose of things — the ultimate Why — while contemporary thinkers are either totally uninterested in such questions or think that qua scientists they have no business thinking about them. The modern scientific mind, in fact, denies the reality of any nonmaterial cause and is thus reduced, should it be interested in final causality at all, to the futile exercise of looking for ultimate explanations in matter itself. I recall a modern textbook author who described how Roger Bacon accurately diagrammed the workings of the human eye and discovered the details of its operation. He remarked disparagingly, however, on Bacon’s comment that the seven parts of the eye were like the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, allowing supernatural light into the soul as natural light enters the body. For the modern writer, Bacon was dragging religion into what should have been a religion-proof scientific discussion; for Bacon, the delight of his discoveries included seeing the glory of the Creator reflected in the details of his creation.

     We must not ignore the real breakthroughs that resulted from the Scientific Revolution, such as the development of the experimental method, the use of mathematics to formulate scientific propositions, and the invention and use of new scientific instruments. All this made possible enormous strides in modern science and technology. It could have occurred, however, without the rupture with the past and the radical change in mentality that accompanied the progress of the revolution. To sum up its long-term consequences, we can observe that the old worldview that saw distinction but not conflict between faith and reason, or between theology and biology, and that took all of reality, material and immaterial, as the object of its study, was destroyed. Science and philosophy parted company, and the work of old-fashioned thinkers such as Aristotle and Aquinas, who had harmonized the many disciplines, was rejected. The emphasis on final causality, the answer to the ultimate Why, was abandoned in favor of the descriptive how — how it operates, not why it is there in the first place. This shift has been described as a denial of the concept “that the world has a purpose more profound than its description.” Natural science in the seventeenth century rose from the humblest area of research to its current position as standard for all others: science (narrowly defined) became the measure of all things, the final arbiter of truth, so that we now say, “Scientists tell us . . .” or “A scientific study has shown . . .” when we really want to clinch an argument. This new science is defined so as to exclude all causality that is not material. The scientist is the new high priest of arcane knowledge (and if he is a rocket scientist — well, you can’t get wiser than that, can you?).

     And it all started with Galileo.

     The hard-materialist / atheist resolve to eliminate all considerations of final causes, and the metaphysical / theological explorations they inspire, has given rise to something C. S. Lewis touched upon in That Hideous Strength, in this passage about the Satanic N.I.C.E. – supposedly a purely “scientific” institute – hoping to enlist the resurrected Merlin in its army:

     The old Druid would inevitably cast in his lot with the new planners. A junction would be effected between two kinds of power which between them would determine the fate of our planet. Doubtless that had been the will of the Dark-Eldils for centuries. The sciences, good and innocent in themselves, had even in Ransom’s own time begun to be subtly manoeuvred in a certain direction. Despair of objective truth had been increasingly insinuated into the scientists’ indifference to it, and a concentration upon power had been the result. Babble about the élan vital and flirtations with pan-psychism were bidding fair to restore the Anima Mundi of the magicians. Dreams of the far future destiny of man were dragging up from its shallow and unquiet grave the old dream of Man as God. The very experiences of the pathological laboratory were breeding a conviction that the stifling of deep set repugnances was the first essential for progress. And now all this had reached the stage at which its dark contrivers thought they could safely begin to bend it back so that it would meet that other and earlier kind of power. Indeed, they were choosing the first moment at which this could have been done. You could not have done it with nineteenth-century scientists. Their firm objective materialism would have excluded it from their minds; and their inherited morality would have kept them from touching dirt. MacPhee was a survivor from that tradition. It was different now. Perhaps few or none at Belbury knew what was happening: but once it happened, they would be like straw in fire. What should they find incredible, since they believed no longer in a rational universe? What should they regard as too obscene, since they held that all morality was a mere subjective by-product of the physical and economic situations of men? From the point of view which is accepted in hell, the whole history of our Earth had led to this moment. There was now at last a real chance for fallen Man to shake off that limitation of his powers which mercy had imposed upon him as a protection from the full results of his fall. If this succeeded, hell would be at last incarnate.

     Think about vivisection.
     Think about the sale of organs from aborted late-term fetuses.
     Think about the “euthanasia” of the mentally ill, and the harvesting of their organs.
     Think about the torments that have been inflicted from time to time on prisoners, in the name of Rehabilitation.

     Think about all of it…and pray. We don’t have much time left.

Gazing Into The Abyss

     If you’re not aware of Catholic moral theory – and even many Catholics aren’t fully aware of it – you might not have become acquainted with the “five non-negotiables” of the Catholic Church: i.e., the five subjects on which no alteration in doctrine will ever be contemplated:

  1. Abortion;
  2. Same-sex marriage;
  3. Embryonic stem-cell research;
  4. Euthanasia;
  5. Human cloning.

     The piece just below this one concerned euthanasia, and the “unthinkable horror” of conjoining it with organ harvesting for later transplantation. Increasing the availability of transplantable organs is the nominal motivator behind many ugly ideas in the medical arts and biological sciences. Human cloning – the production of a human being by the manipulation of cells from an already living “edition” of that human being – has been attempted but, as far as I know, has never succeeded.

     Pray that that record of failure remains unbroken. Here’s how characters in one of my novels approached the moral aspects of the matter:

     “It would be the technological miracle of the century, you know,” Amanda said.
     The flat look swerved to settle on Amanda Hallstrom.
     “To be used for what?” Sokoloff said.
     The dean of Athene Academy opened her mouth to speak, but no words came out. Sokoloff’s gaze weighed upon her.
     That’s his don’t-mess-with-me face.
     Sokoloff nodded.
     “I’ve been turning it over in my head,” he murmured after a moment, “and I can’t think of one morally acceptable reason to clone someone. Living or dead doesn’t matter.” He swept his gaze around the group. “Can anyone else?”
     No one spoke.
     “The people who did this,” he said, “did it to turn out a sex slave. Probably by request and to specification, and I’d bet my house that if they haven’t done it before, they’re trying to do it again right now. For that I’m going to send them all to hell. But think about it. Let’s say they were to clone me—produce a baby version of me. That baby would have no parents or other relatives. The people who produced him would have no reason to care for him, or about him, and only they would know he existed. He would be a product for sale. Why would anyone make that product? Why would anyone want that product? Apart from pure altruism?”
     “Altruism?” Trish said.
     “Yeah,” he said. “The kind that makes people take in stray dogs and cats. Think that’s likely?”
     Well, you did it.
     “The only reason to clone someone, other than the motives Fountain’s creators had, would be to replace him,” he said. “Or parts of him. And that means either murder, or enslavement, or cannibalism by surgeon. It’s evil no matter how you slice it.”
     “That’s if clones were granted the status and rights of people born the…regular way,” Juliette said. “What if they weren’t?”
     Sokoloff gestured at Fountain. Six pairs of eyes swung toward her. She remained still and silent.
     “That’s worse, isn’t it?” he said.
     Trish slid over next to Fountain and took her hand.
     “A lot worse,” she said.
     “Yeah,” Juliette said.

     [From Innocents]

     But human cloning is viewed by many as the potential Fountain of Youth and Immortality. Researchers on all the continents of the world are attempting it even now. Do you think they’ve thought through the matter as starkly as Larry Sokoloff? Or is their hunger for fortune and glory in the way? Or perhaps their fear of death?

     Either human life is sacred and not to be sacrificed for any lesser value, or we are all merely awaiting the butcher’s knife. “Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”

At The Entrance To Hell

     America is in a bad way, largely because we’ve neither acknowledged previous public-policy mistakes nor responded firmly to lawlessness and public disorder. The bill mounts with each passing day. Whether we or any successor generation will pay it is uncertain.

     But there are some horrors we have not yet embraced…at least, not all of us. CBD at Ace of Spades HQ reports on one today:

     As usual, Europe leads the way when it comes to genocide, but this time they are channeling a particularly vile brand of utilitarianism…kill the crazies, but let’s harvest their organs too!

     Euthanizing the Mentally Ill:

     Belgium and the Netherlands legally permit euthanasia based on mental illness alone. Meanwhile, Canada’s Parliament just legalized lethal jabs of the mentally ill after a waiting period to permit bureaucratic death protocols to be worked out. This is particularly worrisome for the United States as Canada is our closest cultural cousin.

     And here’s an insidious twist: Euthanasia for mental illnesses has become conjoined with organ donation in both the Netherlands and Belgium, Such kill-and-harvest procedures have even been written up approvingly—or, at least without criticism—in notable international organ transplant medical journals.

     Fifty-six years ago, Larry Niven conceived of such a horror, albeit in a legal rather than medical setting. His chilling story “The Jigsaw Man,” which first appeared in Harlan Ellison’s anthology Dangerous Visions, is an acknowledged classic of science fiction. But most horrifying of all, it’s steadily becoming true.

     When I wrote this piece:

     Boomers grant the discussibility of euthanasia for the lowest of all reasons: it would save us money. We’d no longer have to worry about how to foot the bills for Gramps, or for the spouse with terminal multiple sclerosis, or for the child with severe cerebral palsy or Down’s Syndrome. Beyond the money, it would save us having to labor over those wretches, or endure their complaints and their lack of gratitude. Away with them! If the State won’t take them off our hands, maybe God will! More time and money for us, that’s the ticket!

     Of course, we hedge our selfishness and cowardice with the nicest of stringencies. There must be consultations and deliberations. Family, physicians, psychiatrists, bureaucrats — everyone must have a say. There must be nothing that could possibly be done for the sufferer to elevate his “quality of life” near to that of an actual person. And of course, when we inevitably decide upon the inevitable Quietus, it must be painless — not for the sake of the guest of honor, but as a balm for our own consciences.

     …I already feared that the death cults had gotten the upper hand and were closing in for the kill – on all of us. You can only cheapen human life so far before just about anything else will appear more valuable, and therefore worth the sacrifice of a few lives to attain or obtain. Europe, which has descended much further into amorality than have we, is ahead of us in this, but there’s no guarantee that America won’t follow.

     It’s not necessarily the case that the will to mass slaughter is animated by malice. Sometimes it arises from false notions of mercy. Somewhat more often, it derives from venality. Finally we have cowardice: the unwillingness to accept our human mortality: human death as the price for human life.

     No man is damned until the instant of his death. The same is true for nations…but Belgium, Holland, and the other states that have embraced the horrors of medicalized cannibalism teeter at the edge of the abyss. Whether they’ll recover their senses in time to avert the verdict from which there is no appeal, we can only hope…and pray.

A New Kind Of “Mistake”

     I think we’ll be seeing this more often:

     Sunday’s fatal shooting in a Minneapolis suburb was the 18th time in the past 20 years that police officers used a gun when they said they intended to use a Taser, according to a use-of-force researcher.

     By comparison, police kill about 1,000 people each year in incidents including shootings, according to Campaign Zero, an organization focused on ending police violence.

     Brooklyn Center police officer Kim Potter resigned Tuesday after a second night of unrest followed her shooting of Daunte Wright, a Black motorist she and police had pulled over. Tim Gannon, the chief of police, also resigned.

     Researchers and law-enforcement veterans say it is difficult to confuse the two weapons because Tasers are generally bright yellow in color and lighter than handguns and because most officers wear them on opposite sides of their belts to avoid confusion.

     Body-camera video of the encounter shows Mr. Wright exiting the car and then getting back in, as police try to pull him back out. Ms. Potter can be seen pointing a gun at Mr. Wright and saying repeatedly that she is going to use her Taser.

     Mistake, eh? Well, maybe. Even probably. But then, there was an outstanding warrant on Wright, and it wasn’t for jaywalking:

     Daunte Wright choked a woman and threatened to shoot her if she did not hand over $820 she had stuffed in her bra, court papers obtained by DailyMail.com allege.

     Wright was due to face trial on a charge of attempted aggravated robbery – with a possible maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

     Charging papers say he and a second man, Emajay Driver went to a home shared by two women in Osseo, Minnesota ‘to party’ in December 2019. At the time, Wright was 19 and Driver was 18.

     The women asked them to leave around 2.30 am on December 1, but they said they didn’t have a ride and the women – who are not identified in the court documents – allowed them to sleep on the floor.

     In the morning, one of the women went to the bank to get her $820 rent money which she gave to the other woman and then left for work. As Wright, Driver and the second woman were leaving, Wright allegedly tried to hold up the woman.

     ‘The three of them were walking to the door to exit the apartment and defendant Wright turned around and blocked the door preventing victim from leaving,’ says the report, written by Osseo Police Officer Shane Mikkelson.

     ‘Defendant Wright then pulled a black handgun with silver trim out from either his right waistband or his right coat pocket and pointed it at victim and demanded the rent money,’ continued Mikkelson.

     ‘Victim said “Are you serious?” Defendant Wright replied: “Give me the f**king money, I know you have it.”

     Given all that, had I been in the situation that Officer Potter confronted, I might have made the same “mistake.” But as Officer Potter is white and Daunte Wright was black, she will be pilloried for administering justice to a violent felon. Meanwhile, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota is being ripped apart by rioters — black rioters.

     I can’t help but agree with Ragin’ Dave’s approach to the problem:

     I say let it burn. Those areas don’t have what it takes to enforce the law. They don’t have the will, they don’t have the political fortitude, they don’t have the mental ability to stop people from rioting and burning and looting. So let it burn, baby. Not one single fucking cent to Minneapolis. Burn it to the ground, and then laugh at the people who remain….

     Let it burn. Let it all burn, and then mock the idiots who burned their town down around their ears while they sit in embers and ashes. Maybe, just maybe, if it’s painful enough, people will learn that you don’t allow rioters to control everything and everyone.

     It’s that or one of two even more painful solutions:

  • Cordon off the afflicted cities to prevent the violence and vandalism from spreading;
  • Police and National Guardsmen go to live ammo and free-fire rules for those cities.

     But there are good people doing their level best to defend their portions of those cities, aren’t there? And so far, they’re having considerable success, just as did the famous “rooftop Koreans” of the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Mike Hendrix comments on the matter:

     Don’t start none, won’t be none, bitches. However, be aware: if you DO start some, there are folks around who’ll be more than happy to finish it for ya.

     But as far as I’m aware, Kyle Rittenhouse excepted, none of those armed defenders of their own properties has yet had to fire a shot at a rioter. What will happen to the first man the rioters elect to challenge? The police have notoriously sided against private citizens who’ve wielded firearms in defense of their rights and properties, and the rioters know it. Remember the McCloskeys of Saint Louis, Missouri?

     I’m not hopeful. I think things are likely to get much worse before people generally decide they’ve had enough. Their first act will be to demand the enforcement of the law…a demand which will receive lip service and little more. But after that, decent people will become genuinely enraged. They’ll go to the “We’re going to take care of this ourselves, police and prosecutors be damned” stage.

     Should we get to that point, it will make black Americans wish for the “Two Doors” scenario. But by then it will be much too late.

The Political Strategy Of The Usurper Regime…

     …is to lie. Continuously. About everything.

     Two examples follow – and believe me, I could have produced more without any exertion.

     First comes a scathing article from John Lott and Thomas Massie:

     There were so many lies in Vice President Kamala Harris’ and President Joe Biden’s presentations on guns Thursday that it is hard to know where to start. One thing is certain, though: The media fact-checkers won’t question their claims. Here are just a few of the false ones….

     Six egregious whoppers follow, straight from the Biden-Harris puppets’ mouths. Lott and Massie refute each of them in turn. Their conclusion?

     No, the rules for buying guns at gun shows are no different than buying them anywhere else. And no, when guns are unavailable neither the suicides nor the suicide attempts drop. Unfortunately, the liberal fact-checkers—as usual—are nowhere to be found.

     Next up, there’s a minor matter affecting illegal immigration:

     One of the very first things Joe Biden did when he came into office was to cancel the Remain in Mexico policy and the Trump agreement with the Central American nations of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Then the invasion began. At least 350,000 strangers, adults, and children, blew in and traveled throughout our country, some criminals and terrorists too, others with COVID. And they are here to stay.

     Well, now Biden wants to slow the migration since public opinion is turning against the administration. Our border guru Kamala Harris is missing in action. We are told she is studying the causes of the mass migration and we are supposed to believe that.

     So, what he decided to do is go back to Trump’s agreement with Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala and pretend it’s his agreement.

     No joke.

     CNN reports that the Biden administration has secured agreements for Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala to tighten their borders and stem the flow of migration, Special Assistant to the President for Immigration for the Domestic Policy Council Tyler Moran told MSNBC Monday.

     “We’ve secured agreements for them to put more troops on their own border. Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala have all agreed to do this. That not only is going to prevent the traffickers, and the smugglers, and cartels that take advantage of the kids on their way here, but also to protect those children,” Moran said.

     As Maura Dowling notes above, those agreements were hashed out by the Trump Administration and were already in place when Biden took office. Once again, the liberal fact-checkers are silent. “Liberal fact-checkers” will someday have a high place among the Orwellian phrases of our time. But then, why bother about the facts when there’s a Narrative to be maintained?

     The rioters were out in force last night looting and destroying their community after police shot and killed wanted gangbanger Daunte Wright.

     The rioters looted several businesses including a liquor store, a computer store, and a hair supply store.

     During the press conference on Monday leftist reporters tried to lecture Police Chief Tim Gannon on the situation on Sunday night.

     One reporter told Chief Gannon that the riot was not a riot!

     That’s when Chief Gannon set them straight.

     Brooklyn Center [Minnesota] Police Chief Gannon: “I was front and center… at the riot.”

     Reporter: “There was no riot.”

     Gannon: “There was… the officers that were putting themselves in harm’s way were being pelted with frozen cans of pop, they were being pelted with concrete blocks.”

     Large numbers of persons committing acts of violence and vandalism is a riot both legally and colloquially. The “reporter” was probably under instructions to minimize the event. Chief Gannon, God bless him, would not permit it. Meanwhile, the media freely use the words riot and insurrection to describe the events in Washington D.C. on January 6. Yet in that event, the only interpersonal violence was perpetrated by the Capitol police and the damage to the Capitol building was trivial.

     There’s no more effective technique for paralyzing a country than the ubiquitous lie – especially when the truth is plain to see. The inescapable cognitive dissonance that results leaves the victim feeling helpless, unsure of his own perceptions and unable to act with confidence. Ursula Le Guin gave us a fictional depiction of the technique in her early novel City of Illusions:

     “What do we really know of the time of our greatness? A few names of worlds and heroes, a ragtag of facts we’ve tried to patch into a history. The Shing law forbids killing, but they killed knowledge, they burned books, and what may be worse, they falsified what was left. They slipped in the Lie, as always.”

     For a summing-up, we have the great T. L. Davis:

     America is right where the left wants it, mired in the quicksand of trying to distinguish the truth while new lies are invented every hour. The stolen election cannot be countered by the right, because that would require massive voter fraud on the right to counter that on the left. There is no equilibrium. The left is fighting for what it wants and the right, it seems, is tired of having what it has always had, bored with it, too lazy to maintain it. Granted, there is a lot more motivation to achieve something one has not had than to defend what is common. Until, at least, it is no longer common, but something to be obtained.

     But make no mistake, the lies told today are about everything. Every commercial represents a popular lie as if the people have chosen to be deceived rather than to face the truth or deal with facts. It’s dangerous. It’s how whole nations dissolve into nothingness. If I thought that my countrymen, who recognize all that I have said, would stand with me, I would have no fear for the future of this nation and the human beings being raised into this soup of self-deception. We could turn it around, but as we have seen, any congregation quickly becomes a means of our own destruction by the society of lies in which we live, so we contemplate our own isolated destruction by the machine of lies.

     History teaches me that in the darkest moments, when all seemed lost, a spark has ignited the world against its own destruction. At one time, that was America. But communism is the pernicious lie that consumes all. It is ingenious in its simplicity, lie until the truth cannot be known, destroying all truth, leaving only propaganda. That it always leads to destitution and an annihilation of the human impulse toward charity and righteousness seems not to bother those who claim to be too principled to fight it.

     Until we destroy the machine of lies, we cannot be free.

     Have a nice day.

Load more