The Pre-Memorial Day Overload Edition

     Commentators have two counterpoised problems:

  1. “There’s nothing to write about!”
  2. “There’s way too much to write about!”

     I’m in the throes of Problem #2 at the moment. So here goes nothing…or everything, depending on your perspective.


     Banks usually don’t have a great deal of cash on hand. A branch VP will try to dissuade you from making a “large” cash withdrawal. Among other things, it renders them less able to service others who want cash. But these days, a new reason is making news:

     This is ominous, to say the least. Why should a depositor have to establish that he has a good reason for wanting his own property back?

     Of course, NatWest frames this policy as “protection” for the depositor. How else could it justify it? Nevertheless, other, less laudable reasons seem more likely, especially given the Usurper Regime’s drive to eliminate cash altogether. Beware.


     The nation is still smarting from the effects of the “Pandemic lockdowns.” It’s been three years since they were first imposed, and quite a lot of information has come to light since then, little of it favorable to the lockdowns. Of course, we were urged to passively accept the decrees of the “experts” because…well, because they’re “experts!” In this regard, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology Steve Templeton has some revelations for us:

     Experts are generally terrible at forecasting, as demonstrated by psychologist and author Philip Tetlock in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgement. In Tetlock’s study, when 284 experts were asked to make 27,451 predictions in areas relevant to their expertise, the results were a total bust. When pitted against “dilettantes, dart-throwing chimps, and assorted extrapolation algorithms,” experts did not consistently perform better than any of them. They were no more accurate at forecasting than the average person. However, there were some people who proved better at forecasting, yet these were not what one would traditionally label as “experts.” Instead, more accurate forecasters tended to be more well-rounded, less ideological, and more willing to challenge their own assumptions. In contrast, experts just assumed they knew everything, and were wrong as much as right.

     These days, “experts” trade largely on their credentials: degrees, published papers, prestigious public positions, and the like. So even they realize that relying on their record as forecasters is unwise. It’s something to keep in mind for when the next round of scare talk begins.


     Robert Spencer first entered the public eye with his work on Islam and jihad. In recent months, he’s spoken on a wider number of subjects, with equal incisiveness. Here’s one of great interest to me personally:

     The Daily Signal reported Sunday that the FBI “appears, at least briefly, to have joined the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attempt to demonize Roman Catholics who follow the church’s teachings on marriage and who celebrate the Latin Mass.” One of those Catholics, Michael J. Matt, editor of a newspaper called The Remnant and producer of Remnant TV, noted that his organization, which is not remotely connected with violence or terrorism, was listed on a “leaked FBI memo,” along with other Catholic groups that he pointed out were “defunct.”

     Matt declared that this was an example the “FBI phoning it in,” as its list of “radical-traditional Catholic hate groups” came from a 2007 list compiled by the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich and Rhonda Brownstein. Matt asked incredulously: “They took Heidi Beirich and Rhonda Brownstein’s word for it, from 2007?!” He added: “There has been an explosion of traditional Catholic groups since Pope Benedict XVI brought back the Latin Mass. None of the new groups who are in positions of real influence are targeted in the memo.” That’s good, but the fact that the FBI is working with the SPLC and targeting law-abiding citizens because it disapproves of their religious beliefs is disquieting enough.

     The Southern Poverty Law Center bears one of the most Orwellian names among American organizations. In fact, it’s been responsible for the promotion of hatred and violence, but has seldom been held to account. The FBI, which has recently displayed an eagerness to deflect attention from genuine public menaces and onto decent Americans, seems not to care.


     The FBI isn’t the only federal agency that dislikes Christians:

     The Biden administration is doling out taxpayer money through an anti-terrorism grant initiative to a university program that has explicitly lumped the Republican Party, as well as Christian and conservative groups, into the same category as Nazis, according to documents shared exclusively with Fox News Digital.

     The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, obtained documents through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests showing a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program meant to fight terrorism is funding a group whose work has explicitly targeted the American political right. The MRC outlined its findings in a report,arguing what the group found warrants criminal prosecution.

     “This terrorism task force is engaged in an active effort to demonize and eliminate Christian, conservative, and Republican organizations using federal taxpayer dollars,” said Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center. “What we have uncovered calls for criminal prosecution.The American people need to know those who are abusing their positions in the federal government will be held accountable for their criminal behavior.”

     I can’t see how this could be innocent on the part of the DHS. It dovetails too well with other reports of Usurper Regime hostility toward Christianity. And of course we’ve had Dementia Sufferer In Chief, Joseph R. Biden, tell us that Republicans are the next best thing to fascists, too, haven’t we?

     Any number of other commentators have said, occasionally in so many words, that “It’s about to get spicy.” But it hasn’t…yet. What will it take?


     One more and I’ll close for the present. You’ve heard me rant and rave about “the usages of Sulva.” I’ve done it both in fiction and in opinion pieces here and elsewhere. But this morning it seems I haven’t made the point strongly enough:

     Growing human babies from scratch in a lab could be possible in just five years thanks to a new breakthrough.

     Researchers in Japan are on the cusp of being able to create human eggs and sperm in the lab from scratch, which would then develop in an artificial womb.

     Professor Katsuhiko Hayashi, a Japanese scientist at Kyushu University who has already figured out the process in mice, believes he is just five years away from replicating the results in humans.

     But there are ethical concerns, as it means women of any age could have babies. Parents may also want to design their offspring to have certain traits using gene editing tools, giving way to the notion of an assumed perfect child.

     That this is happening in Japan, the Western nation with the lowest birthrate of all, was almost to be expected. If regular humans don’t want to reproduce, “science” will do it for them. But what sort of children will “science” produce? Who will raise the babies? What values will be instilled in them?

     I wrote about something parallel to this proposed atrocity in Innocents: human cloning. The following snippet is from that novel:

     “[T]hink 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?….
     “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.

     The production of babies in laboratories is just as evil as cloning. The “product,” nominally a human being, would be property. Camouflaging this with the flip assertion that loving parents would await such babies is absolutely deceitful. If that were true, Japanese couples would be producing them in the time-honored fashion!

     The logic above applies to any babies that would come into the world through the machinations of “science,” regardless of any and all considerations.


     I’d say that’s enough for the Friday before Memorial Day weekend. Try not to think about it too much. Enjoy your barbecues. And do please offer a prayer for the souls of those who have fallen in battle in the service of our country. Have a nice day.


    • Alex Lund on May 28, 2023 at 9:24 AM

    While I agree with you on the first part, there is something to consider.
    In Germany people are called and the caller says he is from the police and the child of the person called has committed a serious crime and unless the person called will give a lot of money to a police officer visiting them in a few minutes, the child will go to prison.
    This is fake.
    The caller sits in a call center in Turkey and they call people with old names (names that you wouldnt name your child with today, like Heinrich, Mathilde etc), because they assume that old names means old people.
    They dont know if the person called has a child but they call in such a way, that the called person reveals their childs sex. And then they continue, build pressure, horrify the person etc.
    Then an accomplice comes and collects the money.
    This is then transferred to Turkey.
    And even if the Turkish police works with the german police they dont return the cash, because the german victim must identify the cash (with the number on the banknote) otherwise they cannot connect the money with the person.
    Valuable metals must be identified the same way, so sometimes the german gets the property back, but the collectors are now up to the game and melt precious metals in short time.
    So, the employees of german banks are instructed by the police to look for signs of distress etc to find out, if the person withdrawing the money is victim of such an attack.
    Now, you would expect that the german government would protect its citizen by unleashing the Secret Service (if the turkish authorities, who are on the take, dont take out those call centers, then it should be done 007-style) but the german government does NOT care.
    In fact some years ago a green politician said that the germans have too much money so it should be given away.

    1. I agree that that’s evil, and if it were possible to prevent it without unduly hamstringing citizens well able to protect themselves, it would be nice. But why imagine that restricting everyone’s access to his cash is the way to go? Among other things, scams like the one you describe don’t always involve cash. As often as not, they employ non-cash means. Remember the “iTunes cards” scam of a few years back?

        • Alex Lund on May 29, 2023 at 6:45 AM

        While I remember these card scams, in Germany they use mostly the money version.

        I do agree with you that the access to cash should not be restricted in any way. And that banknotes should be not restricted (the EU withdrew all EUR 500 notes because of money laundering – what a joke).

        But unfortunately that demands that the state fullfills his part of the social contract and protects its citizen.

        Yes, we could sent oo7-style agents to Turkey or we could use a computer to monitor all calls coming from Turkey and when it is such a call cut the connection, but this demands the will of the government to protect its citizen.

        So, if the state is not willing to do its job, we have to do it in a way thats possible. And currently, thats the only way.

Comments have been disabled.