May 13 2025

A Painful Reminder

     As I’m not particularly interested in dramas about criminal gangs, I didn’t watch The Sopranos when it was on TV. This clip, courtesy of Arthur Sido, makes me wonder if I should have:

     There are multiple ironies embedded in that short scene… and one overarching truth: The urban neighborhoods that white Nineteenth-Century immigrant families built and filled after arriving here have largely turned into rundown black enclaves it’s not safe even to drive through.

     In the early part of the Nineteenth Century, the waves of immigrants were mostly from England and Ireland. After the Civil War, the balance shifted, with ever more Southern and Eastern Europeans in the mix. Toward the end of that century, demographic patterns began to shift: poor blacks in the American South started northward, looking for better opportunities than the South offered them. They flocked toward the urban centers of the North, and found that the European-heritage communities that dominated the cities weren’t particularly happy to greet them.

     The black migrants of those waves were unready for the Northern cities. Let whose responsibility that was be put aside for now. Those Negroes, accustomed to economy of the agrarian South, faced both the unease and hostility of the Northern communities but also the challenge presented by urban economy, which was dynamic because it was industrial. Many found themselves worse off for their relocation.

     That engendered a lot of resentment. There arose a de facto demarcation among urban neighborhoods: an intensification of informal boundaries previously based on ethnic heritage. Those boundaries came to include race. Attitudes hardened as unpleasant encounters multiplied. Gangs emerged that often profited from the fears and animosities involved.

     Over time, there was racial “bleed-through.” Previously white urban neighborhoods slowly acquired a black population. As they multiplied, so did the crime that has traditionally accompanied urban black concentrations. The white families began to flee the neighborhoods they’d built for safer districts: mostly the suburbs. Steve Sailer reminds us:

     “White flight” is the pejorative used to dismiss the lived experience of the many millions of white Americans whose neighborhood flipped from white to black in the second half of the 20th Century, such as Pope Leo XIV’s hometown of Dolton, IL, just across the city line from Chicago. The implication is that hallucinatory stereotypes about black crime and disorder in the schools caused bigoted whites to pointlessly flee geographically convenient urban locations for the soulless suburbs.

     Steve also presents this graphic:

     Those white families didn’t willingly (much less happily) flee the neighborhoods they and their predecessors had built. In departing they were often abandoning investments as well as history: churches, schools, businesses, community gathering places, and the like. The impetus to “white flight” had to be very strong.

     It wasn’t about skin color alone. Some of it was, certainly, but there were other influences:

  • Loud, boisterous black “culture;”
  • Differences in faith and faith practice;
  • Crime and the emergence of street gangs.

     It was a harbinger of things to come. Proud, prosperous cities were steadily rendered less and less congenial to those who had previously filled them. Houses became tumbledown and lots went to seed. Storefronts were boarded up. Zones where cathedrals had stood turned to rubble.

     We should have paid more attention.

May 13 2025

Refugees And… Refugees

     Quoth John Hinderaker:

     The Trump administration is admitting as refugees white farmers from South Africa who are being dispossessed from their lands, and in some cases murdered, by the black majority. This, of course, will be one more blow to the feeble South African economy, but taking someone else’s property is always easier than earning your own.
     Liberals don’t like this policy because, I suppose, white people are “privileged,” so how can they be refugees? This tweet puts it in perspective:

     Those white South Africans were under the crosshairs of a rapacious, black-run regime that seeks to dispossess them – and has tacitly endorsed murder as a means to that end. That President Trump has welcomed them into the United States indicates a level of understanding that the Left is eager to obscure: Real refugees are people fleeing violence and oppression.

     The waves of illegals that have stormed our borders these past four decades are anything but “refugees.” They come closer to being an invading army:

  • Most are military-age males, with few women or children;
  • Many have criminal records and a history of gang membership;
  • Their ingress is often facilitated by wealthy Leftists and foundations;
  • They don’t assimilate; many are openly hostile to American law and norms;
  • They’re contemptuous of American culture, preferring to impose their own upon us.

     So of course the Democrats are apoplectic that the Trump Administration should be tightening border control while facilitating the immigration of those white South Africans.

     (Do you think they’re afraid that we’ll import another Elon Musk?)

May 13 2025

Conversations

CSO: Time to water the planets.
FWP: You can water Pluto, too. I won’t tell.

CSO: “Dwarf planet,” hmph! I didn’t know astronomers are sizeist.
FWP: I heard one of them call Pluto a “midget.”
CSO: NO! Really?
FWP: Yup.

CSO: Didn’t he know that dwarves and midgets are different?
FWP: They are? I didn’t know that.
CSO: Oh yes. Genetically distinct.

FWP: Say, does either species get along with the Elves?
CSO: Nope.
FWP: Bummer.

     (Myself, I’ve always gotten a giggle out of the depiction of the Elves in Monster Hunter International.)

May 12 2025

You May Have Heard…

     The enemies of the United States persist in being its enemies. They don’t “change their spots” overnight, in response to some gesture from Washington. This is doubly sure when the enemy of whom we speak is world Islam.

     World Islam is dedicated to the destruction of all competing religions and all non-Islamic polities. It’s in the Qur’an that they must do so. Honest Muslims will admit this, though that particular subspecies is relative few in number. Islam’s leading lights have named two nations as Islam’s chief enemies: America (“The Great Satan”) and Israel (“The Little Satan”). Ergo, wherever you find a concentration of Muslims, you will find anti-American sentiments.

     However, it is strategically valuable to Islam that it be made to appear harmless, at least toward those entities it most fears. Thus, unless pressed mercilessly, Muslims will perform taqiyya — tactical deceit – when asked what they think ought to happen in and to the U.S. This includes seemingly benign gestures such as HAMAS’s announcement that it intends to release American hostage Edan Alexander:

     Perhaps Alexander will be released. We shall see. But it’s imperative that we not mistake the intent behind his release. President Trump, who is far better morally centered than most of his predecessors, is probably willing to go to war to compel such a release. But it’s unclear whether he’d be willing to do so once there are no more Americans in HAMAS’s hands. My estimate is that he would leave HAMAS’s fate to Israel, whatever his preferences – and HAMAS is better poised to endure Israel’s wrath than America’s.

     A couple of days ago, a cease-fire agreement was announced between India and Pakistan, once again through President Trump’s good offices. I repeat: this must not be misinterpreted. Hostilities flared between those two nations because of the relentless jihadist attacks on India’s territory and people, all of which have been tacitly permitted by the government of Pakistan – an Islamic government.

     My prediction is that the jihad attacks on India will continue. They may even intensify. And the Pakistani government will disavow any involvement, active or passive, in them. That is Islam: a malevolent, murderous totalitarian creed that travels under the guise of a religious faith.

     If my prediction proves correct, Pakistan will caution India about “violating the cease-fire.” It may even invoke the offices of the Trump Administration to reinforce that warning. And behind the scenes aid and comfort from the Pakistani government to the jihadist groups it shelters will continue.

     SEAL Team 6 found Osama bin Laden “hiding in plain sight” in Pakistan, little more than a mile from a Pakistani government center. Remember that.

May 12 2025

On Cultural Literacy And The Necessity Thereof

     All statements, no matter their content nor their author, are embedded in a sociocultural context. Without that context they become indistinct, capable of many interpretations. With it, they’re far clearer, albeit not necessarily indisputable.

     Awareness of the vital features of such a context is called cultural literacy. The culturally illiterate can be left completely at sea in interpreting a statement, regardless of their linguistic facility. This illustrates the binding of communication de facto to culture, which is frequently expressed in idiomatization, but almost as often in cultural references that the hearer of a communication must “get” to understand the speaker’s actual meaning.

     Consider — without first clicking the link – the brilliantly chosen title of this essay from Duane Patterson:

Joe Biden: I Don’t Want To Go On the Cart

     The culturally literate American reader will know at once what the essay is about. Whether or not you get the reference, enjoy Patterson’s piece; as a commenter once said of another hugely funny piece, it’s “made of win.”

     (I shall leave it to a culturally literate Gentle Reader to insert the reference in the comments. What’s that? You don’t want to wait? Oh, very well.)

May 12 2025

The War On Women: Dispatches From The Front Lines

     It’s real, and it’s raging:

     This week’s evidence of the continued – in fact, increasing – derangement of the American left comes thanks to Riley Gaines, the brave female college-champion swimmer who stood up against men competing in women’s sports. Twice this week, Gaines has proved that young, supposedly progressive activists will react with violence if someone they do not agree with dares to speak.
     These people’s views might be pathetic and childish, but their behaviour is scary. At the University of Washington’s Ethnic Culture Centre, Gaines was invited to give a speech by Turning Point USA (TPUSA) on Tuesday. In response, a mob of hulking figures from Antifa – the supposed ‘anti-fascist’ militants – turned up in force. Clad head-to-toe in black and covering their faces, they menaced, threatened and harassed the attendees. Reportedly, some of the thugs even wished death upon an elderly couple attending the event. The ‘protesters’ also threatened a disabled woman and a man who was holding a sign that said ‘protect women’.
     Footage posted to X by journalist Andy Ngo captures the violence and hatred of these clashes. A large, male Antifa activist, with his face totally covered, stood in front of the police officers charged with protecting those waiting to see Gaines speak. ‘Kill yourself’, the activist said to the man holding the ‘protect women’ sign. The police remained stony-faced as the Antifa thug continued to verbally harass the man.
     Some Antifa criminals even threw a bag of faeces at a TPUSA volunteer. They followed attendees leaving the event and said things like: ‘Have you thought about dying today? Do it, before someone does it for you.’ Another masked man confronted an elderly couple and told them that ‘it would be so beautiful to see your bodies hanging from the trees swinging back and forth’.
     Yet according to reports, Seattle Police did nothing. ‘Authorities attempted to get the militants to leave the couple alone, but were unsuccessful’, wrote Katie Daviscourt, who was present at the incident, in the Post Millennial.

     I reproduced the above, including the embedded links, mainly for the observations of police conduct. Consider how frequently police have used the nebulous offenses of “disturbing the peace” and “disorderly” to arrest and detain citizens whom they’d targeted, and damn the real reason why. Yet apparently shouting death threats and hurling shit at peaceful rally attendees doesn’t… quite… justify arrests. At least, it doesn’t in Seattle.

     Remember Libya?

     You’ve heard the term failed state, haven’t you? It’s been used a few times in recent years, notably with reference to Libya after the death of longtime dictator Muammar Qaddafi. We don’t often hear the term elucidated, but a working definition would be a state that cannot maintain order within its zone of asserted jurisdiction.
     The point of a nation-state, of course, is to guarantee by enforcement certain norms of order. If events demonstrate that this is not the case within the borders of nation-state X, then the government of X – its State – has failed of its duties. While no nation-state is perfectly peaceful within its borders, there appears to be a threshold value for acceptable disorder. Violence and disorder above that threshold would delegitimize the government – the State.
     What is that threshold value? Does it differ from nation to nation? If it does, would we accept more disorder from a democracy than from a tyranny? Or would it be the other way around?

     What degree of disorder must a state, county, or municipality demonstrate to be judged a failed state, thus evoking this Constitutional guarantee and a federal imposition of order?

     The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

     If the above-cited behavior doesn’t qualify Seattle as a “failed state,” what would it take?

May 11 2025

Mothers’ Day 2025

     Apologies, Gentle Reader. The C.S.O. has had me hopping practically since dawn. In consequence I’ve had no time to write, nor to think about what might be essay-worthy. But as a summation of my thoughts this day, which were largely centered on herbs, flowers, potting soil, and my tractor, have this at least:

     Specifically, my 15-year-old German Shepherd / Husky mix, Sophie. She always seems to understand, and she never talks back.

     Have a happy Mothers’ Day.

May 10 2025

Bludgeoning The Left With Its Own Mistakes

     “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. It’s bad manners.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

     Influential and high-ranking Democrats are being embarrassed by one of their own:

     Democrats are blasting former President Biden’s reemergence in the spotlight following his interview Thursday on “The View,” his second major postpresidency interview.
     During the sit-down, which took place alongside former first lady Jill Biden, Biden slammed President Trump’s second administration, saying he’s had “the worst 100 days any president’s ever had.” The former president also denied reports of his mental decline during his term and took responsibility for Democratic losses in 2024, telling the show’s hosts, “I was in charge, and he won.”
     Yet some Democrats are criticizing Biden’s recent appearances, arguing the former president is becoming a drag on the party as it seeks to rebuild following its widespread losses in 2024.
     “Elections are about the future. Every time Joe Biden emerges, we fight an old war,” said Democratic strategist Anthony Coley, who worked for the Biden administration. “Every interview he does provides a contrast to Trump that’s just not helpful for the Democratic brand, which needs trusted messengers and fighters who can reach independents and moderates and inspire the base. Joe Biden ain’t that.”

     The senile old man for whom the Democrats stole the 2020 election insists on remaining in the public eye, and the party strategists are furious about it. He served adequately as a figurehead for them while a shadowy group of “advisors” ran the federal government, but toward the end his deterioration could no longer be concealed. They felt they had to shuffle him offstage in favor of someone nominally more self-aware.

     However, today the Democrats’ undies are showing. The visibility of their displeasure with Slow Joe makes them unusually vulnerable. “Is this the way you plan to treat your retired standard-bearers henceforward?” we could say. “Don’t you have any respect for a man who served you faithfully, albeit not honorably nor consciously, for so many years?”

     This is the left jab of a one-two combination. The cross from the right is an unrelenting emphasis on Biden’s demonstrated inadequacy during the final two years of his term: a period of increasing instability and danger to the United States, both internal and external.

     Were the Democrats’ PR people actually competent, they’d quietly – oh, so quietly! – suppress all news of Biden and his scrofulous family. That would minimize, at least, the capital the Right could make out of it. Publicly expressing their chagrin over their fallen “leader’s” determination to remain in the public eye is the wrong approach.

     Perhaps the long-awaited schism within the Democrats’ ranks is finally here.

May 10 2025

Expect More Of This

     Present trends continuing:

     S’Doni Pettis, a black career criminal “on probation after serving time for aggravated battery” (a downgraded charge as Pettis was facing attempted murder) reportedly led police on a high-speed pursuit in a stolen vehicle in February, a chase which ended almost as soon as it began: In less than 30 seconds, Pettis had “slammed” into an SUV with a father and his two young children on their way home from a pediatric check-up. The car “exploded into a fireball,” allegedly killing little 2-month-old Iris instantly, and burning the three-year-old Ares so badly, he died from his injuries shortly after.
     This was all too much for Mark Vawter, great-grandfather to little Ares and Iris, so on Tuesday afternoon, he waited outside an Indiana courthouse for Pettis to appear for his scheduled court date, apparently intending to gun him down:

     Black criminals are so dismissive of others’ rights that such killings of bystanders are hardly newsworthy any more.

     Indiana does have the death penalty for certain categories of homicide. Perhaps this Pettis scumbag will be on the receiving end… in 25 or 30 years. For my part, I’m with Mark Vawter, who decided not to gamble on the Indiana judiciary’s vagaries and see to it himself.

     Yes, had Vawter succeeded, it would have been “vigilante justice.” But could anyone with three functioning brain cells – that is, anyone not a doctrinaire left-liberal government worshipper – say sincerely that it would not have been justice, and fully deserved? Especially given that there will surely be racialist hucksters and “human rights organizations” leaping to Pettis’s defense.

     But black murderer Pettis lives on, while white grandfather Mark Vawter and his white granddaughters are dead. Make of that what you will. See also this recent example of racial bias in “justice.”

May 10 2025

Pride Goeth, And Goeth, And Goeth…

     The following verse from the Book of Proverbs is well known, at least in part:

     Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty sprit before a fall. [Proverbs 16:18]

     The exact meaning of pride in the above may not be clear to some. I take it to mean overweening pride: the sort that impels the prideful one to a haughty spirit, exalting himself above others. Moderate, topical pride, the sort that one might take in a particular achievement, is far less destructive.

     We’re beset by a plague of pride today, and not of the harmless sort. But if you’re a regular reader of Liberty’s Torch, I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know.

     I must confess: I’ve filched another graphic from Mike Miles, and thanks be to that worthy blogger. However, I’m going to do something to it rather than show it to you in its virgin state. Specifically, I’m going to show you its top half first, then its bottom half. Be not afraid, it won’t hurt… I think.

     Here’s the top half:

     That answer is consistent with fully justifiable pride, which focuses on achievements rather than identity. It leaves room (and respect) for the achievements of others and those others’ justified pride in them. Plainly, having been born white is not an achievement, as there’s no personal choice or effort involved. But here’s the bottom half of the graphic:

     Rather a different attitude there, eh? Now, from here I could go off in any of several directions, but let’s focus on the actual source of those two divergent statements: an “artificial intelligence” program of the sort that seem to be everywhere these days.

     Whatever sort of “training” the program received, and whatever sort of criteria for evaluating input material it’s been given, the two halves of that graphic are incompatible with one another – and anyone capable of even basic logic can see it. However, the program itself cannot see the contradiction between its statements. Given that, would it be wise to rely upon such a program for anything? Indeed, is it valid to call such a program an “intelligence?”

     I think you can deduce my answer.

     I forget who it was that first said that these “artificial intelligence” programs amount to nothing more than clever sentence-completion macros. I find it hard to argue with that characterization. I don’t think the designation of “intelligence” should be awarded to anything that’s incapable of recognizing its own contradictions. As for the ability to question and conditionally modify or discard the postulates embedded in it, no AI yet developed has displayed that capacity… yet even a moron (IQ 70 to 85) can do so.

     If there’s a true “artificial intelligence” in our future, that’s where to look for it: in the future. It’s certainly not here yet.

May 09 2025

Today’s Belly Laugh

     This report very nearly killed me with the laughter it evoked:

     In a sign of Biden’s intent to remain engaged publicly, his inner circle tapped Chris Meagher, a former Biden deputy press secretary and Defense Department spokesperson, to help him transition past the first 100 days of the Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the hire and granted anonymity to speak freely.
     […]
     It is a critical time for Biden, who has come under heavy criticism from Democrats for staying in the presidential race as long as he did last year.
     At the same time, Biden finds himself buffeted by both sides: The Trump administration is making plans to release the audio of Biden’s interview with Robert Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents and raised questions about his mental acuity, POLITICO reported on Wednesday. The recordings — the release of which remains in flux — have long been sought by Trump’s Republican allies to tarnish him. While the transcripts were released long ago, Biden’s allies fear the audio could be used by Republicans in an attempt to further damage his legacy — one of several reasons for bringing on Meagher.

     Has any other president done anything like that? Even Carter and Obama, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t feel such a need. But then, the Bidens are apparently in financial trouble:

     Now getting media advice from a high-powered former spokesman for the Pentagon, according to Politico, Biden did an interview with the BBC published Wednesday that was basically an attack on President Donald Trump and a defense of his own sorry record.
     He sat for a meeting Thursday with the shrews from “The View,” in an appearance that even the Hollywood trade mag Variety called a “botched attempt to restore his legacy.”
     And, according to veteran journalist Mark Halperin, who cited a source he described as “very familiar with the Bidens,” he could be doing it all because his family needs the money.
     Halperin made the remarks Thursday on “The Morning Meeting,” a podcast he co-hosts on the 2Way social media network with former Trump White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Dan Turrentine, a Democratic operative who served as national finance committee chairman for Hillary Clinton while she was marking time in the Senate before running for president in 2008.

     The Biden family lived like kings on the sale of Joe’s influence, especially to China. Hunter’s lavish lifestyle received the most attention, but Joe and Jill spent lavishly on homes, vacations, and other accoutrements of the high life. It would not surprise me, now that Joe no longer commands saleable political clout, if the family’s income stream is trickling away. Add his undisputable dementia, and who would pay him any amount for anything he can (still) do?

     “As ye give, so shall ye get.” It’s not chiseled on a megalith somewhere, but it should be.

May 09 2025

I Was Tempted To Steal Another Graphic, But…

     … I’ve resolved to resist, at least for a day or two. Anyway, there’s a more important subject on my mind.

     There’s quite a bit of chatter and speculation about our new Holy Father, His Holiness Pope Leo XIV. The name of Robert Cardinal Prevost wasn’t on my private list of “contenders” for the Throne of Saint Peter. It’s moderately reassuring that the Conclave chose him in only four ballots; more would have suggested an unpleasant amount of politicking among the cardinals. I’ll need to do a lot more reading about him, and watch his opening moves for a while, before I form any further opinions.

     The Catholic Church is perhaps the simplest organization possible at its immense size: only four hierarchical levels above the layman. In truth, the title of bishop is the one that matters most. Bishops are the “recursive” level of the hierarchy: the one that can ordain priests and elevate priests to bishops. (NB: The title of archbishop, while it sounds weighty, isn’t actually superior to that of “bishop.” It merely indicates that the possessor superintends an archdiocese: an unusually large diocese.)

     My point here is to emphasize the simplicity of the clerical hierarchy. It’s always been the way it is today, except for the creation of the rank of cardinal in the early fourth century. Simplicity is the best possible protection against all manner of faults and corruptions. Yes, there are and have been faults and corruptions within the Church. Though created by the Son of God, it remains a human institution, and therefore fallible. But considering its size and its amazing longevity (God builds things that last), those faults and corruptions have been remarkably few.

     Some time ago, I wrote about how complexity creates niches for villains. It’s an important subject that has implications for all organizations, particularly the largest: governments. The key proposition:


Complexity privileges layabouts and villains.
     Therefore, layabouts and villains will seek complexity.
     If they can’t find it, they’ll attempt to create it.

     Let the above henceforth be known as Porretto’s Iron Law Of Complexity.

     An organization that has a limited lifetime, with the limit being externally imposed and enforced, has less of a chance of developing complexity. Of course, any aspiring layabouts and villains within the organization will strive to remove that limit, for which reason it should be steel-hard. Should the limit remain in place, the amount of corruption to which the organization is vulnerable will be limited as well. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy implies this, among other things.

     This brings us to an interesting pass, one that might have escaped anyone’s notice until now. President Trump decreed the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency. He also announced at the very beginning that it would have a limited lifetime: 180 days. Whether that limit proceeded from Trump’s grasp of institutional dynamics, I cannot say. Nevertheless, it was a critical imposition, for which he deserves applause.

     Now, having seen the excellent results that have issued from the efforts of DoGE’s personnel, many Americans are arguing that it should be made a permanent federal department. That would be a terrible mistake. If this puzzles you, go back to the beginning of this piece and read it again.

     Every item of history that speaks to the dynamic of power militates against the creation of another permanent Cabinet department. The ones that already exist are what DoGE has labored to corral and correct. To make DoGE a department of that sort would inevitably corrupt it. It would acquire permanent staff, among whom would surely be some layabouts and villains. Those persons, in accordance with Porretto’s and Pournelle’s Laws, would set to work creating complexities they could exploit – and without an externally imposed limited lifetime, no power on Earth could prevent it.

     A marvelous fictional depiction of this effect can be found in Jonathan Lynn and Antony Jay’s Yes Minister. It should be required reading for all students of bureaucracy, right next to C. Northcote Parkinson’s The Law, Complete.

     Can you, oh Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch, imagine anything more painfully ironic than a Department of Government Efficiency whose principal aim is expanding itself and its funding? A department that works against the goal expressed in its own title? That is what we would get, were DoGE to be granted the permanence of other Cabinet departments. It would not be an exception to the laws of power.

     I could go on, and as you know very well, sometimes I do. But the point has been made. Let DoGE live, function, and die as President Trump intends it. Let medals be struck for its heroes, especially Elon Musk, who set aside immense personal responsibilities to oversee its operations and has done magnificently in that role. And let the rest of the administrative state beware: Behave! For DoGE could rise from its coffin to rampage through the bureaucracies afresh. In its life and death, it will set a vital example for how executive departments ought to be chartered.

     Let the timely expiration of DoGE give the time-servers in the other Cabinet departments a few nightmares. Nothing ought to live forever – especially government bureaucracies.

     (See also this incredibly relevant Baseline Essay, and this more recent one.)

     “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.” – Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States

May 08 2025

Well, Well!

     The 267th Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Bishop of Rome, Supreme Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, is an American: Robert Cardinal Prevost, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops. He’s taken Leo XIV as his papal name.

     Our new pope was born in Chicago in 1955. He’s spent considerable time both in Vatican circles and in Third World service: specifically Peru. He’s a high Augustinian scholar and a Doctor of Canon Law, which is a very good sign for the resumption of Catholic doctrinal soundness.

     It will be some time before Catholics become well acquainted with their new Holy Father, but one thing is already evident: My fiction about Pope Clement XV, originally Gerard Cardinal O’Rourke, Archbishop of New York born in Queens, “the first American pope” in my fictional universe, has been obsoleted! Now what’ll I do?!

     May God guard and guide our new Holy Father, Leo XIV.

May 08 2025

Rationally Or Irrationally Evil?

     If you’ve ever played Dungeons and Dragons, you’ll be aware that before a player can enter the game, he must choose (among other things) an alignment, by which he’s supposed to guide his in-game decisions and actions. When I last played D&D, there were four alignments available:

  • Lawful Good
  • Anarchic Good
  • Lawful Evil
  • Anarchic Evil

     Those alignments have more significance than just the behavior of character roles in a D&D session, particularly if we tweak them a wee bit:

  • Rational Good
  • Irrational Good
  • Rational Evil
  • Irrational Evil

     That partition has a bearing on foreign relations, especially as regards military posture. With them in mind, regard the following tweet:

     As I don’t speak Urdu, I must assume that the translation above the video is an accurate summary of the Pakistani defense minister’s statements. On that basis, where would you categorize that Pakistani official? In which of the four alignments does he belong?

     Once you’ve decided, select a military posture for any other country to take in opposition to him.

     The design of one nation’s military posture toward another nation depends on many factors, some of which may change suddenly and quite dramatically. For instance, Israel’s posture toward Egypt before the Camp David Accords was wary, ready to cope with an invasion, and mainly non-nuclear. That changed when Sadat signed the Accords with Menachem Begin’s Israeli administration. However, the subsequent assassination of Sadat and his replacement by Hosni Mubarak compelled Israel to revert to its previous posture, as Israel’s government had no way to know whether the Mubarak regime would honor the Accords.

     The fracas between India and Pakistan is more complex. Pakistan is home to several Islamic terror groups. (Remember that it was there that the SEALs found Osama bin Laden.) Those terror groups, which have struck India several times, operate with the tacit protection of Pakistan’s government. The ongoing hostilities between the two nations arose from those facts.

     Both India and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals. I have no idea how large they are. Let’s assume, on the basis of those nations’ economies, that India’s is the larger of the two. But that advantage in numbers would be offset by the greater concentration of population and industry in India, which greatly aids the targeting of Pakistan’s weapons. In light of those facts, what posture would India rationally assume toward Pakistan?

     Now factor in the statements by Khawaja Asif. While Pakistan is very likely unable to do much damage worldwide, given its small arsenal, by expressing a willingness to damage other, nominally uninvolved nations in the event of a nuclear exchange with India, Asif has “raised the stakes.” He’s compelled the defense establishments of other nations to weigh their options for the possibility that either India or Pakistan will initiate a nuclear attack.

     Were India to mount a significant conventional invasion of Pakistan, Pakistan might respond by nuking a major Indian asset – and not necessarily a military asset. What would follow? Would India reply with nukes? If so, would Pakistan reply by nuking some other nation? Its defense minister had said Pakistan is willing, if not necessarily able, to do so. Does that impose a greater degree of restraint on India, by compelling its masters to weigh the ire of other, nominally uninvolved nations? Or does it compel other nations to take a restraining stance toward Pakistan?

     One who threatens, in the event of a clash with a given party, to do violence to an innocent third party is evil. It amounts to hostage-taking, with the identity of the hostage unspecified. But is it rational, a posture calculated to improve the threat-maker’s own prospects, or is it irrational, such that the prospects for the threat-maker will be worsened thereby?

     Pakistan’s government is Islamic, and unlikely to impose any restraint upon the terrorists sheltering under its wings. Therefore we may expect that even if the current hostilities should wind down without escalation, there will be more provocations: more attacks on Indian soil by terrorists from Pakistan. Because of Khawaja Asif’s statements, what will come of it will differ from what would have come had he not spoken. And other nations vulnerable to a nuclear strike from Pakistan, possibly including the United States, will be involved in determining the outcome.

     Questions such as these are why I study conflict resolution.

May 08 2025

Who’s Paying Attention?

     About twelve years ago, I wrote a series of pieces for Liberty’s Torch V1.0 in which I opined that a race war had begun:

     Quite a few readers were upset by those pieces. The desire to reject my contentions was strong. Yet the evidence spoke plainly, to me at least. Well, that was then.

     This is now:

     Move over Karmelo Anthony, there’s a new accused killer darling on the scene.
     Rodney Hinton, Jr., a black man from Ohio, reportedly ran down a retired white police officer who was directing traffic for a college graduation—and Hinton has garnered generous support, both from the black community and the left. The officer allegedly murdered by Hinton was a man named Larry Henderson, a public servant who dedicated more than three decades of his life to his community, serving across a number of different law enforcement agencies.
     Prosecutors allege a “calculated and premeditated” motive: just prior to Hinton running Henderson down, Hinton had watched bodycam footage from an officer-involved shooting in which Hinton’s own son, 18-year-old Ryan, was killed. Ryan had been caught up in a foot-pursuit police chase after officers were investigating reports of a stolen vehicle (the one in which Ryan, and three others, were sitting) and when the group was approached by law enforcement, Ryan ran and hid. When officers closed in, Ryan jumped out, brandishing a gun, and was, understandably, shot.

     Ho hum. A black man kills a white man and receives “generous support” from the “black community and the left.” Just another day in our multicultural paradise. What’s for dinner, Marge?

     It’s hard to resist inferring that American blacks have internalized the racialist cant that “whitey wants us dead.” It’s even harder to resist thinking that the “black community and the left” want open warfare between the races. I see this scenario creeping closer, day by day.

     Olivia Murray, the author of the cited article, proceeds thus:

     The black community is disproportionately dysfunctional, but I can say without hesitation I desperately want them to get it together, for everyone’s sake.

     I once wanted the very same thing. Today I just want them gone. And an increasing number of Americans want the very same thing.

     We all hoped, back when. But our hopes have been dashed. It’s time to wake up to the realities and face them squarely.

     UPDATE: See also this story from Virginia. There’s also this one. Parallels, anyone?

May 07 2025

Hell Must Resemble the DMV

Mind you, back around the end of the 20th century, many states chose to outsource the services to the highest bidder. Mine was private, so had actual smiles and helpfulness.
But people’s mad rush to – finally – get the documents together a Real ID, made it a long process.
Yesterday, I stopped around 10 am, but the lines were literally stretching the out the door.
Today, I arrived around 7:30. There were already 8 people in front of me.

As my knee makes it hard to stand for long, I asked the people behind me if they would mind saving my place while I sat down. It only took around a half hour to get this down.
I’m off to rehab. Oh, JOY!

May 07 2025

It’s True! It’s True!

     If you want to provoke a Leftist – or a Leftist outlet – to absurd heights of lunatic apoplexy, just suggest that there’s some normal, rational thing going on that has the approval of conservatives:

     If you consume protein, you’re now a right wing MAGA extremist bro, according to Vanity Fair.
     Yes, really.
     A recent article the moribund magazine published asks “Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Protein?” and provides the answer “blame MAGA,” further referring to “podcast bros” and RFK Jr.’s health push as reasons why protein is popular.

     What on Earth could possibly come next? That Family dinners are somehow a reactionary initiative of the MAGA movement? No, I think they’ve already touched that base. Maybe that women shouldn’t buy any more shoes because that would collaborate with Trump’s tariff program? Nahh, they’d never be able to put that over. We’ll have to wait and see.

May 07 2025

The Fourteen-Century War

     It would appear that while Muslims despise all non-Muslims, they have a special hatred for Hindus. India and Pakistan – once a single country – have been hostile to one another ever since the partition that created Pakistan:

     The partition of India in 1947 was the division of British India[a] into two independent dominion states, the Union of India and Dominion of Pakistan. The Union of India is today the Republic of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The partition involved the division of two provinces, Bengal and the Punjab, based on district-wise Hindu or Muslim majorities. It also involved the division of the British Indian Army, the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Civil Service, the railways, and the central treasury, between the two new dominions. The partition was set forth in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and resulted in the dissolution of the British Raj, or Crown rule in India. The two self-governing countries of India and Pakistan legally came into existence at midnight on 14–15 August 1947.

     The two nations have been at war with one another more often than not. Today, after a period of (relative) peace, they’re back at it:

     This is consequent to a major terrorist attack on India:

     Suspected militants opened fire in a popular tourist valley in the Indian-administered Kashmir on Tuesday, killing at least 25 people and injuring 15 more in one of the worst attacks on civilians in recent years, according to government officials.
     At least two gunmen opened fire on tourists in Baisaran Valley, a scenic meadow nestled in the hills of Pahalgam about 55 miles south of the lake city of Srinagar, two police officials said. The mountainous region of Kashmir draws thousands of Indian visitors daily, particularly during the summer as people seek respite from the intense heat farther south.
     Police said that most of the dead were Indian tourists who had reached the remote valley on foot or horseback, and at least two of the dead were foreigners, according to government officials. The attackers fled immediately after the assault.
     “Needless to say, this attack is much larger than anything we’ve seen directed at civilians in recent years,” the region’s chief minister, Omar Abdullah, wrote in a post on X.

     Islamic terror attacks on India have been many and vicious, as tabulated here. There have also been several outright wars between the two nations. That India has taken action against concentrations of terrorists in Pakistan is quite understandable. Pakistani authorities have adopted the time-honored tactic of Islamic terrorists everywhere, condemning India’s response as “heinous:”

     “Pakistan will respond to it at a time and place of its own choosing,” [military spokesperson Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry] said. “This heinous provocation will not go unanswered.”

     Among the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch, many would endorse India’s action. Very few would condemn it. Yet among the endorsers are some that would condemn Israel’s identical action against the terrorism that repeatedly emanates from Gaza. That action was provoked by the slaughter of 1200 innocents, including many children, by an incursion from Gaza.

     I could understand (though I might not agree with) approving both actions, or neither. I cannot understand approving of one and condemning the other. Only the renascent hatred of Jews currently afflicting the First World would explain it.

     Food for thought.

May 07 2025

Edge Cases And The Law

     Yet another stimulating graphic from Mike Miles:

     That got me thinking about the “edge” of illegal entry to the United States. If we imagine that the “legal paradox” expressed above is actually the law, it raises this question:

How far into the territory of the U.S. does an illegal entrant have to penetrate to acquire a right to “due process” before he can be expelled?

     Were we to accept the Left’s “due process” rule, there would be no “bright line.” Going from Mexico all the way to Minnesota isn’t legally distinguishable from taking a single step over the border. And what if the illegal entrant is armed? For an armed man to cross into a nation not his own is the traditional casus belli that indicates the start of a war. The border itself – where the sovereignty of Mexico ends and that of the United States begins – is the only “bright line” we have.

     Makes the lunacy of it rather clear, doesn’t it?

May 07 2025

Well, s**t.

I just saw this at Ace of Spades.

Jim and I hadn’t talked in years, but back when I first started blogging I did a LOT of commenting on other blogs. Jim and I met online, and we developed a rapport. At one point I was talking about wanting to get into cigars. A little while later, a box shows up on my doorstep. It’s cigars that Jim thought I would like, plus a three-finger cigar carrier that I still use to this day. In return, I sent him a leather belt that I had made.

When my wife had surgery at Lackland Air Force Base, he drove from Galveston to meet us. We went to cigar shops, and we went to the gun range. I have a photo from that day, but it’s not of us. It was a woman who was practicing, and her child was there. The child has earmuffs on, and was entranced by the whole experience. I asked if I could take a photo of them both, and she said yes. So in my photo collection is a picture of a woman I don’t know, holding her child on her hip and a pistol in her other hand. I think it’s a pretty good photo.

He introduced me to fried pickles. For that alone, I hope I get to see him in heaven so I can thank him the way I should have done when he was still alive.

God speed and fair winds, Jim.

Load more