Jul 09 2024

When they tell you who they are, believe them.

There’s a post up on Twitter/X/Twix from Libs of TicToc, detailing how LGBTOSTFU people in California are railing against a bill that would make it a felony to purchase children for sex. These people claim the bill will effect LGBTOSTFU people more.

Let me restate that, because I had to read it a couple of times just to make sure my old peepers were working properly.

California Senate Bill 1414 aims to combat human trafficking by making the purchase of sex with a minor a felony. Why it’s not already a felony I have no idea, but it’s California. Even several decades ago, outside of Hollywood, when you got arrested for having sex with kids you didn’t last too long once you get GenPop, but maybe things have changed that much and so now they have to codify it.

So. SB 1414. Paying a minor for sex is bad, m’kay? Buying a kid for sex is bad. You can’t do that. It’s not good. And the LGBTOSTFU crowd begins the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth because this bill is going to disproportionately effect them. I’m sorry, what?

Is that a Freudian slip, or is this part of what the Diabolical Narcissists do when they rub your nose in their actions? Because, and maybe I’m just being silly, I just heard the LGBTOSTFU crowd admit that they like to have sex with kids. That they seek it out. That they have no problem with the sexual trafficking of children. That they admit that they are a significant portion of the people who have sex with children, so much so that any laws against having sex with kids will hit them harder than any other part of the population.

Should I call them liars, or should I accept what they say as the truth?

What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial, and the sure knowledge (don’t think for a second that they DON’T know) that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences BEFORE he can be “ruined” by attraction to a girl. – Moira Greyland, The Last Closet

Jul 09 2024

Turning Heads

     Apparently, women’s basketball sensation Caitlin Clark isn’t done breaking records yet:

     Caitlin Clark is currently leading the WNBA in total points from scoring and assists. Similar to the NFL’s all-purpose yards measurement, Clark now has to be considered a candidate for MVP and Rookie of the Year (ROY).
     Clark on Saturday became the first rookie in WNBA history to have a triple double (10 or more points, rebounds and assists in the same game). She also is the fastest player in WNBA history to reach 350+ points and 150+ assists in a season.
     Clark continues breaking records after breaking numerous records in college at Iowa where she was named the best player in college two years in a row. Clark is a basketball record-breaking machine.
     Clark received more votes than any woman in WNBA history for the All-Star game, achieving more than 700,000 votes. Last year’s winner had 90,000 votes. Clark sells out arenas wherever she goes. The league, which never made a profit in nearly 30 years, is also adding viewership records whenever Clark is on TV. She is a phenom and revenues are increasing.

     Believe it or not, there are… persons putting Clark’s superb performance to “white supremacy.” But you had to expect that. The women of the WNBA feel overshadowed by her – they are, frankly – and that makes them angry.

     But how does Clark’s debut differ from any other exploding superstar? Didn’t Magic Johnson have the same effect on basketball? Didn’t Michael Jordan? Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal?

     No, the problem here isn’t Clark’s talent. It’s that she’s a white heterosexual Christian, and that people are coming to WNBA games to see her specifically. She’s the one putting fans in the seats and money in the WNBA’s till. The other women of the WNBA wouldn’t be trying so hard to hurt her, otherwise. Neither would the Indiana Fever’s marginal incompetent of a head coach, Christie Sides, be straining to keep Clark from not just breaking records, but smashing them to flinders.

     In that regard, Caitlin Clark is quite distinct from Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, et alii. An entire professional sports league owes its unprecedented popularity – and its newfound profitability – to her. The breakout stars of men’s basketball can’t say anything close to that.

     Caitlin Clark isn’t conclusive proof that American basketball fans are hungry for more white stars. But the reactions of black stars and commentators, many of them persons of dubious character and shameful antecedents, tell a tale of entitlement and resentment that cannot be effaced. By their lights, the pro sports leagues belong to them.

     A few years back, retired baseball star Joe Morgan, who had achieved greatly when he played for the Cincinnati Reds, made an unpleasant name for himself with an on-air comment he made as a sports broadcaster. In short, he accused Major League Baseball of racism. He claimed that blacks are under-represented in the major leagues, which he attributed to racial biases. His co-broadcaster, whose name I’ve forgotten, made no attempt to rein him in.

     Black players in major league baseball: 12%
     Black percentage of the U.S. population: 13%

     Sound like a tempest in a teapot to you, Gentle Reader? But that’s the entitlement syndrome of the Negro in America for you. “What’s ours is ours, and you honkies better not say otherwise!” That, plus the high percentage of black sports figures who are felons or the fathers of bastards by multiple women, plus the penetration of the pro leagues by “woke” and other anti-American themes, freed me of all interest in professional sports.

     But that’s “hate speech,” and I’m a “racist” for saying it out loud. Go figure.

Jul 09 2024

Plainly Stated

     And by one of today’s most eloquent commentators and thinkers, at that:

     If someone wished to destroy America, could he do anything more catastrophic than what we currently see and hear each day? What would an existential enemy do that we have not already done to ourselves?

     Fair use restricts me from inserting the entire essay here. Please read it all. (It was originally a series of “tweets,” but it would still feel wrong to swipe it whole.) Dr. Hanson summarizes the campaign against America better than I’ve seen it before this. No important facet of the attack is omitted.

     But let us ask two questions.

     The first, necessarily, is Cui bono? Who benefits from the steady reduction of the United States of America, once called the “indispensable nation,” to an emasculated laughingstock? The answers come readily, and as the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch are a bright bunch, I need not supply you with them.

     The second question, however, is of greater moment, as painful as it is to face it: Why have we done nothing to resist it? We’ve enjoyed a right denied to 99% of Mankind throughout its history: the right to keep and bear arms. Every one of the Founders who spoke on this subject made it plain that resistance to tyranny was the central point of that guarantee. Yet we’ve done practically none of that. Are we waiting for the tyrants to take our guns away from us?

     Among Internet acronyms, this one is currently paramount:

TINVOWOOT

     Stalin could tell you why. No doubt he’s looking on amusedly as we persist in trying.

     You can vote your way into socialism, but you have to shoot your way out. – Originator unknown

Jul 08 2024

The Multiparty Model Versus The American Model

     Events in Britain and France these past few days have emphasized one of the critical differences between the European, “parliamentary” scheme for forming a government and that which prevails in the United States. In Britain and France, the aggregated Left may rise to power over the parties of the Right, despite the Rightist parties actually having earned more votes. The Leftist parties won fewer votes than the Rightists, but in aggregate they won more seats in their nations’ parliaments. By negotiation and coalition-building, they may succeed in outflanking their conservative adversaries. The executive administrations of those nations will be determined by which coalition has the greatest number of seats. In consequence, the administration is always ideologically compatible with the largest coalition in Parliament.

     That makes possible rapid changes in the law, with little regard for previous law or customs. It also makes possible equally rapid reversals of the law. The destabilizing effect upon the lives and enterprises of private citizens can be quite serious.

     America is nominally a multiparty republic, yet it’s rare that anyone not affiliated with one of the major parties ever wins an election even at the state or local level. It has happened, but it’s uncommon. Moreover, such non-major-party officials are put under heavy pressure to “caucus” with one of the major parties… and, of course, to vote in concert with their selection. Note the behavior of the so-called “independents” in our Congress. Thus, the dominance of the major parties continues.

     Which system is the better one? The answer depends too much on opinion and preference. The American system, buttressed by a Constitution and the federal division of powers between Washington and the states, tends toward better protection of individuals’ rights, but it also suppresses the influence of minority opinions. The European system, whether or not backed by a written constitution, tends toward swifter government action, but also less respect for rights and more behind-the-scenes purchasing of support.

     It’s worth some reflection, especially as politicians and activists loudly and perennially exhort Americans to look to Europe as a model for “better” government. My own preferences are already on record.

Jul 07 2024

Evidence Of Spine

     I’m always heartened to learn of some indication that Americans are rediscovering their courage, in these times when so much has been done to make us furtive and timorous. This one from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho cheered me in two ways:

     Christians in Idaho who had been banned from carrying religious symbols during their 4th of July parade came out in force on Thursday proudly toting crosses.
     Those who attended the Independence Day parade in Coeur d’Alene in the deep red state could be seen proudly waving crosses alongside the star spangled banner.
     As some carried crosses alongside Old Glory, others wore t-shirts with the symbol of the cross emblazoned across it.
     The move by locals came after the Coeur d’Alene Regional Chamber reversed a policy which had banned the use of religious symbols in the July 4 parade.
     New regulations that had been implemented had banned ‘symbols associated with specific political movements, religions or ideologies’, branding them unacceptable.

     Apparently, the Chamber of Commerce, which asserted authority over the Independence Day parade, reversed itself just before the residents of Coeur d’Alene held it up before the world as a toothless would-be tyrant.

     This event can be approached from several directions:

  • What was the CoC’s problem with religious symbols?
  • Would it have tried to ban the black flag of Islam?
  • The “movements and ideologies” provision would ban “Black Lives Matter” and “Pride” flags too, wouldn’t it?
  • Did the CoC expect that the town cops would enforce any such bans? Did any cop try to do so?
  • Did it occur to anyone on the CoC that Independence Day is about a specific political ideology: the one the United States is founded on?

     I know a few people in northern Idaho. They’re patriots, Christians, proud to be both, and proud to say so. They understand the essential connections between Christianity, freedom, and the history of our nation. So they reared up on their hind legs and told the CoC to get stuffed. And the CoC, like petty tyrants everywhere in space, time, and circumstance, folded and shut up about it.

     I entreat you to spread this around, Gentle Reader. With luck, it will inspire emulation. But with that, allow me a few words about freedom of religion, and why that underdefined right has caused America, Britain, and much of Europe so much trouble in recent decades.

***

     When Fisher Ames composed the final version of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the peoples of the thirteen freshly liberated colonies were nearly all Christians from Christian nations. There was a relatively young Unitarian movement, particularly in the lower New England region, and (of course) there were a few Jews and a few “free thinkers” (i.e., atheists). “Religion,” Ames might have thought, would be essentially synonymous with Christianity in its several denominations. Anyone who might choose to disbelieve in Christianity’s preachments could nevertheless be expected to conform to its ethic, at least in public. Ames and the other Founders were anxious to avert “establishments of religion,” wherein a dominant denomination could compel those who follow another to be regulated and taxed for the dominant one’s benefit. Americans had had enough of that sort of crap in Europe and could not be expected to tolerate it in their New World homes.

     However, the passage of time brought new “religions” to the United States, including that most destructive of ideologies, Islam. Other faiths such as Buddhism which conform to C. S. Lewis’s “Law of General Benevolence” – in effect, Christ’s command to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you – would prove no problem. But Islam and the rise of an increasingly aggressive atheism would trouble the body politic, entirely because of the First Amendment’s wording.

     An aggressive creed, whose aim is to impose itself on others by force, is plainly incompatible with a regime of freedom. Yet under the First Amendment, all “religion” is protected from government interference. The crisis arises entirely from that overbroad wording. The consequences are in plain view: Muslims demanding special privileges and asserting themselves over non-Muslims; and aggressive atheists demanding that all traces of Christian teaching and adherence be purged from the public square and public life.

     Shockingly, Christians in our Christian-majority country have sat still for it. So have the nations of Europe, the continent once known as Christendom. But events such as the one in Coeur d’Alene suggest that that might not be the case for much longer.

***

     The time has come to admit that we can’t all “just get along.” When Smith is willing to tolerate Jones, but Jones is determined to rule over Smith, “just getting along” is impossible ab initio. The Jews of Israel have had that demonstrated to them repeatedly by their “neighbors.” Note the proliferation of “demonstrations” – attempts to intimidate American Jews and others who support Israel – that have swept over our urban zones since HAMAS’s October 7 attack on Israel from Gaza. It’s a demonstration of Islam’s core agenda, which includes wiping out every other creed on Earth.

     By comparison, the aggressive atheists who’ve striven to remove every iota of Christian teaching from any and every public institution probably don’t seem as threatening. But stripping Christian precepts and symbols from our public life must necessarily require excluding Christians from it as well. As Islam is at war with every other faith, and Christianity is its principal adversary, Christians must recognize that war and our admittedly reluctant participation in it. To quote celebrated military SF writer Tom Kratman, “Never go to a religious war without your religion” – and there is no conceivable argument that a war between religions is “not a religious war.”

     Christians can tolerate, accommodate, and befriend adherents to other Benevolent faiths: Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Unitarianism, and so forth. But to prevail in the worldwide religious war, we must recover our religion, nourish our faith in it and its precepts, and learn to be passionate about it once more. The alternative is subjugation: whether by the voracious, rapacious adherents of the aggressive creed called Islam, or by the godless who want no God, and no eternal principles of right and wrong, to shield us from them.

     And so I declare myself a Christian nationalist. There, I’ve said it. Your choices are your own affair.

Jul 06 2024

Questions Not Asked Frequently Enough

     I just stumbled over this at Mike Miles’s place, and it got me thinking about such questions generally:

     Yes, why? The majority of Muslim immigrants to the United States and other First World countries are from places where Islam is dominant – in most cases, it’s the law. Other religions are either discouraged, oppressed, or outright illegal there. Muslims harass and victimize Christians in particular, usually with impunity. They often make unfounded accusations specifically to justify imprisoning or executing Christians in those lands. So why come here?

     There’s a range of plausible answers, to be sure. But one thing is clear: Islamic immigration to non-Islamic, First World countries cannot be from an unsatisfied desire to be among Muslims.

     (Does anyone have any statistics about Islamic migration from the migrants’ birth nations to other Islamic nations? Such figures would tell us a great deal, wouldn’t they? But as with the question Katie Hopkins poses, those numbers aren’t in the public discourse, at least as far as I’m aware.)

     Here’s another along the same lines: How often do avowed socialists migrate from capitalist countries to socialist ones? American socialists are notable for remaining here rather than heading to where the economic systems they advocate are in force. Along with that, there’s a net population flow from socialist states to capitalist ones, most pertinently to the U.S. It’s a significant part of what’s going on at our southern border right this moment.

     One more: The advocates of socialized medicine, which is found even in many otherwise capitalist countries, are seldom asked why the sufferers of serious diseases for which prompt treatment is critical, tend to travel to countries where they can purchase the needed treatments rather than wait until their “national health service” can get around to them. Why don’t the opponents of socialized medicine task its advocates with that question far more frequently and publicly? Is there something shameful about the decision to go to a “capitalist doctor” rather than wait until your cancer has claimed your life?

     Of course, questions that aren’t publicly asked won’t be publicly answered. The usual reason such questions are not asked is that the most likely answers – the ones the public is most likely to believe – are uncomfortable. Troubling. Perhaps even an incitement to civil unrest.

     The answers also tend to undermine the positions of powerful men who want still more power. Power over public safety. Power over the material conditions of private citizens. Power over the health and longevity of private citizens. For the answers force us to ask still more troubling questions of those powerful men.

     Sincere believers in Islam, socialism, government-controlled health care, and so on do exist. But so do persons avid for other possibilities. The latter group often exploits the former as “cover.” That’s especially the case when those other possibilities include the enlargement of the latter group’s power and wealth.

     Just a quick reflection on the ancient question Cui bono? We may think we ask it often enough. We’re surely wrong about that. And we tend to discover how wrong we’ve been in very unpleasant ways. Verbum sat sapienti.

Jul 06 2024

The Left Always Preferred The French Revolution To The American — UPDATED

I always knew world history better than American History. I was misled on what I did know. I bet I’m not alone. It’s a fair bet this interview will provide all of you with startling new material. It appears “evil never gives up” still holds water.

Our Friend Ed Bonderenka interviewed Daniel Greenfield on his new book. Catch the broadcast or the podcast later.

For reasons unknown, the display of the twitter file has left off Ed’s introduction, so I’m adding it. Also my twitter post is not showing here even though it does display at Crusader Rabbit. (We’ve still got issues with Word Press.)


Saturday at 2pm Eastern, Ed Bonderenka interviews Daniel Greenfield, the author of Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left, which came out in April. This book fills in some holes in the historical narrative left empty by many educators who would rather not talk about them. But Daniel Greenfield fills those holes! Listen in WAAM 1600 AM or https://waamradio.com/player/

Did you know the Left wanted to ruin George Washington? No wonder our Left lets their radicals tear down his statue. Tune in Sat, July 6, hear it from Daniel Greenfield.

https://t.co/X3TENWjUY0 pic.twitter.com/0Wep7iNTer— Pascal Fervor (@PascalFervor) July 6, 2024

CLICK HERE FOR THOSE WHO MISSED THE BROADCAST OR WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

Jul 05 2024

File Under “Saving Our Democracy”

From: The Media Think They Run The Country. Maybe They Do.

Reporters have dropped all pretense of being concerned about democratic process. “Here,” wrote New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait on the Fourth of July, “is what I think should happen. A small group of party leaders — say, Biden, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jen O’Malley Dillon — should decide on a new candidate over the next week. The group would present its choice and instruct delegates to ratify the nomination at the convention.”

Jul 05 2024

“I’m Not Watching This Show Any More.”

     Have you ever said that to yourself, Gentle Reader? Perhaps after the 2317th episode of some drama that once thrilled you, but whose writers and producers had apparently “lost the plot?” The onset of the condition can seem sudden. Yet no such transition from slavish dedication to “eff this” is anything but gradual.

     My admiration for Andrea Shea King, a.k.a. The Radio Patriot, only increases when she decides to host a compelling piece from another source, such as this one:

     It is ALL THEATER, frenz. Every. Friggin’. Bit.
     Remember this: Everything. EVERYTHING we see and hear from any and every source of pundits, Mockingbird Media, left wing lawyers, past elected Demonrats – and RINOs – of every level, non-elected actors, etc.., etc., etc., of the deep state… has one continuously repeated template. ONE.
     That one template was designed many, many decades ago. It is based on the deep states concept of maintaining a specific level of delusion and limited false knowledge and it is applied to everything.
     It was meant to keep you, me and the American public stupid and passive.
     It has worked for likely the whole 20th century through to now, although many have awakened to their theater inside of the last decade.

     Please read it all. It’s worth your time. It’s especially pertinent given the current frantic squirming of the “major media” in the wake of the public’s realization that those selfsame media have been lying to us about the Biden Administration from the day he was inaugurated.

     Rather than go on an unnecessary tirade of a sort that I’ve written before – here, for example – I’ll put the matter briefly and baldly:

One-Way Media Are Inherently Untrustworthy.

     The preponderance of the nation is close to accepting that.

***

     The emergence of large-scale one-way media in the early Twentieth Century gave birth to the National Political Theater and the conditions it has foisted upon us. Matters have ramified and intensified as such media have expanded their range and refined their techniques, but the central malady has been the same throughout. The method is simple: media promotion of “crises” and “problems,” with attention to politicians’ promises to “fix” them.

     It’s well known today that the overwhelming majority of those who enter the communications-oriented trades – education, journalism, and entertainment – are politically on the Left. What’s not as well appreciated is how that came to be. It arises from the authoritarian preferences of the Leftist, which are consistent with the one-way nature of those trades: What we will proclaim, you must accept without question.

     People uninterested in imposing their views on others tend not to do well in the comm trades. They’re too willing to hear opposing ideas and arguments. They’re open to evidence that might contradict their convictions. They’re willing to meet others on an equal plane; they lack the need to be Authorities.

     Our subliminal recognition of “journalists’” implicit demand to be taken as Authorities must, sooner or later, break out and become a conscious awareness.

***

     The “theater” was first threatened by the two-way Internet and the explosion of interest in its potentials. From its first days, the major media were united in denigrating it. Only recently has the appreciation of it as an information-disseminating tool risen to rival that of the older comm trades.

     (Ironically, those who labor to employ the Internet thus are usually unable to earn a living thereby. But perhaps that’s for the best. Professionalization has ruined education, after all.)

     Consciousness of major-media duplicity jumped sharply with the June 27th “debate” between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The one-way media are no longer able to conceal their partisanry or their willingness to lie for their favored party and candidates. While the political significance of this development is great, its social impact could prove an order of magnitude larger. We may be on the verge of a wholesale withdrawal of our (remaining) trust in the one-way media. The homeschooling trend and the “cord cutting” trend of recent years point in that direction quite as plainly as the loss of readership and viewership by the most prominent organs of establishment journalism.

     Throughout events, the critical thing to keep in mind is that the “theater’s” impresarios are desperate to keep us in our seats. They’ll do anything, fair or foul, to keep hold of our eyes and ears. It hardly matters that we’ve already paid to see the show. Should the majority of us snort in disgust and make for the exits, their trade will be doomed… and they know it.

     And by the way: buy ammo.

Jul 05 2024

Off for a few days

I have a funeral to attend, and friends to comfort. I might post if I have the time. Probably not. See you when I get back.

Jul 04 2024

Happy Birthday, America

     It’s number 248, if we don’t count the very first one.

     Time was, I would print the core section of the Declaration of Independence here, as my commemoration of the original event. It’s one of the greatest passages of prose ever set down, and it deserves to be proclaimed all over the world. But there are surely other bloggers who’ll see to that, so I think I’ll go in another direction today.

***

     It’s not conscience, as Hamlet would have it, that makes cowards of us all. It’s comfort. We Americans of the Twenty-First Century are the most comfortable people who’ve ever lived. No emperor in history enjoyed the degree of comfort that an ordinary American enjoys today.

     Comfort is a gem of many facets. Most of them are about certainty. Certainty of nourishment, clothing, and shelter; certainty of warmth when it’s cold and (for most) coolth when it’s hot; certainty of personal mobility at need; certainty of skilled and attentive medical care when the occasion warrants. Thanks to the oft-derided pharmaceutical industry, most of us even have a reasonable certainty of a painless death. Provided we don’t run around doing unnecessarily risky things, of course. (Yes, some must earn their livings by doing risky things, but even for them, the probability of a terrible, body-maiming event is lower than ever before.)

     Who would willingly risk any of that?

     Don’t let the question slide impersonally past. It’s addressed to you.

***

     Comfort is the principal enabling condition for the encroachment of tyranny. Contemporary would-be tyrants have learned how to do it. Their principal tactics are crisis and gradualism.

     We recently had a demonstration of crisis as a method for enabling our oppression. The COVID-19 episode should have dramatized the power of the approach more than adequately. Even so, most won’t draw the moral, though the point has been made a great many times. As my old friend John Greiner would have done, I’ll use something visually arresting to make sure you’re paying attention:

     (Nothing like the power of boobs, eh, gentlemen?)

     As you read this, the tyrants are straining to contrive a second medical “crisis,” this time around “bird flu.” You may rest assured that, the COVID “crisis” having been so successful, they’ll try it, or something like it, again very soon. Otherwise, they might fall back on one of their standards: “climate change,” “gun violence,” or perhaps “inequality.”

***

     Gradualism has a different dynamic. The would-be tyrant identifies some area of potential action that’s forbidden to him by the law, but which can be plausibly presented to the public as a “problem” that government action can “solve.” We’ve certainly seen enough such “problems:”

  • “Discrimination”
  • “Poverty”
  • “Urban blight”
  • “Pollution”
  • “Unemployment”
  • “Recession”
  • “Workplace harassment”
  • “Unequal opportunity in employment”

     That should be enough for starters. The idea here is to create a justification for a tiny little violation of the law, for the sake of the “solution.” In America, the law to be violated is the Constitution, whose bonds are supposed to be sacred and inviolate. But the would-be tyrant knows that once those bonds have been perforated, they’ll lose what remains of their force. “After all, if we can put a man on the Moon…” — ?

     The wild pigs of the Okefenokee swamp can tell you how that works out. (And no, it doesn’t matter how much you love bacon.)

***

     Crises make us afraid; “problems” disturb our comfort at the margin. Both are useful tools to him who wants power over others. And both have been plied to the hilt by the masters of the political game.

     There’s been a lot of talk about the “deep state” or alternately, the “establishment.” Those are real things, albeit loosely defined and fuzzy along their borders. Rather than an intensive approach to defining them, perhaps we should take a methodological approach: Does person (or institution) X strive to encourage a sense of crisis among us? Does he suggest that there’s a problem that, even though we could and should deal with it as private individuals, we could leave it in government’s hands and remain comfortably seated in our recliners? I propose that an X who adopts either of those methods of encroachment qualifies as a threat to the rightful liberty protected by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.

     The Xs are many. They walk among us, mostly unmarked. You might even be an X yourself. Think about it between hot dogs.

     And enjoy America’s 248th birthday. There’s no way to know how many more we’ll be allowed to celebrate.

Jul 03 2024

Big Brass Ones

     Stephen Green relates a striking tale:

     As President, Donald Trump’s ballsiest moment might have come as he was negotiating an end to our two-decade presence in Afghanistan. Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Tex.) told the story to Shelby Steele on a recent video podcast.
     “I want to leave Afghanistan,” Trump is supposed to have said at a high-level meeting with the Taliban. “But it’s going to be a conditions-based withdrawal.” Hunt recalled Trump saying, “If you harm a hair on a single American, I’m going to kill you.”
     After the translator did his bit — and Hunt indicated that the translator was shocked by Trump’s statement and hesitated before passing it along — Trump pulled a picture of the Taliban leader’s home out of his pocket, handed it to him, and then left.
     Statement. Made.

     Yes, that was notable – and I have no doubt that it happened exactly as Congressman Hunt described it. But Trump has always displayed that sort of brass in negotiation, and his interlocutors have always taken him seriously. They’ve had good reason to do so.

     But while the above is indeed impressive, something a bit more recent has impressed me even more.

     Donald Trump has known for several years that his political adversaries don’t just disagree with him; they want him dead or imprisoned for life. That’s been ever more openly displayed as time has passed. Nevertheless, he campaigned to return to the office that was stolen from him, intensifying his enemies’ animus. He’s also openly attacked them for what they’ve done, starting with their theft of the 2020 election and going straight on from there, such that they’ve had to fear for their own freedom should he defeat them. He’s never attempted to moderate his attacks on them; therefore they must know that in a regime of objective justice restored, they will truly be at hazard.

     Of course, much of that could be dismissed as bluster; after all, politicians are known for that sort of behavior. But Trump has never backed down. When the opposition was foolish enough to accept his challenge to a debate, and demanded a slew of conditions all of which were slanted in their favor, Trump, sure of the solidity of the ground on which he stood, simply agreed to all of it. Political commentators far and wide were certain he’d made a terrible blunder. They predicted a disaster that would cripple Trump irrevocably.

     But Trump was right and they were wrong. His June 27th “debate” with Joe Biden was a spectacular triumph. It has made him almost impossible to beat come November. Somehow, he knew that it would be that way, despite the predictions of all the major-media figures who foresaw a terrible setback for him.

     Donald Trump’s confidence in himself, his positions, and his knowledge of his opponent have made him the most impressive figure in American public life. Given their apparent inability to remove Biden from the presidential ticket, I cannot see a way the Democrats can steal the White House from him a second time. It’s left me feeling very good on the eve of America’s 248th birthday.

     Trump 2024.

Jul 02 2024

Providing The Decent Reason To Speak Up — Continued

My attempts to embed the one minute clip (31-32 minutes of the embedded video at the bottom) would not take. I suggest clicking the link below this paragraph so you don’t need to search for it.

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx3oS9rls82aUBD1IUBQefxSsGeFoKtYpm?si=X8_ustIrlmzxYE4S

What Eric Kaufmann, a rare conservative social scientist, concludes at the end of that minute provides readers who come to Liberty’s Torch further reason to put into your own words what Fran has painstakingly presented to us, and what you yourself have added to it.

Here is the auto generated transcript (with some editing) of that one minute.

The question [We] asked to hundreds of thousands of British uh respondents on its panels: Do you favor political correctness because it protects people from discrimination or do you oppose political correctness because it stifles free speech?

No. In the British public it’s sort of 47 to 37 against political correctness.

Amongst academics it’s maybe 75:20 in favor among social science humanities academics.

Young people take after that. They’re about two to one in favor of political correctness.

And what I would sort of predict is if we run the clock forward 20 years the median in society is going to shift from essentially being opposed to political correctness to being supportive of political correctness.

So something like speech codes for example in universities will have majority support.

And so I think we really have to turn this ship around while we still have a sensible population [That’s YOU gentle reader] because we can’t guarantee that that’s always going to be the case.

And so that’s why I think the schools changing the culture in schools has to be so central.

Jul 02 2024

Life is Good

I just returned from the doctor’s office this afternoon. I had seen my rheumatologist, because I had been experiencing pain and instability in my left knee.

The bad news:

Other than steroids, gel injection, or surgery, not much could be done at this time

The good news:

Although I have essentially no cartilage left, I’m considered to be doing well at this point. The pain and inflammation are manageable with generic drugs, the bone twisting is minimal, and I am able to get around with relative ease (compared to many).

At my age, my mother had been dead for 7 years. Other than mild asthma, I’m fairly healthy.

With the assists of canes, hearing aids, and glasses, I am functional and can perform most of the activities I want with little difficulty. True, hiking up hills is NOT an option, nor are long walks, on the beach or otherwise.

Getting old is a privilege denied to many. Enjoy it.

Jul 02 2024

Not so modern problems require not so modern solutions

Yesterday, our host remarked on the sheer number of non-French flags that were flying at the riots in France over the election results. Note that the riots were in Paris, which of course is kind of like the Scat Fransicko of France, being full of freaks, communists and illegal aliens.

Today, Kim du Toit remarks on the various riots going on over there, and quotes one of said rioters: “A Dead Cop is one less vote for Le Pen”. As Mr. du Toit remarks, that combines support for lawlessness with political terrorism in one pithy sentence

As for me, I see massive crowds of rioting communists and various other forms of human filth who refuse to accept the results of a valid election, and my brain comes up with solutions. But since we’re dealing with something that isn’t modern, we don’t need to recreate the wheel, so to speak.

I’m thinking of something like a crossbow. A solid plank of wood, with a four-inch PVC pipe mounted perpendicular. I’m thinking the pipe would have to be cut in half. At the edges of the plank are hooks for the surgical tubing to be attached, and in the middle of the tubing would be a leather pad. In short, you make a very large sling-shot, one that could be carried by men, or mounted into/on top of a small vehicle. For ammunition, Molotov cocktails. The pipe would be your directional aiming device as well as the guide for the bottles.

You don’t really need to be accurate when the godless anti-democratic communists gather in such large numbers. And I’m certain that engineers or various other crafters could and would refine the design to be more accurate.

If one dead cop is one less vote for Le Pen, then one dead communist is one less vote for evil.

Not very Christian of me? Remember that the Church used to have martial orders of monks. God gave his angels weapons because he knows you cannot fight evil with words alone.

I wonder, how much more masculine virtue would the Church possess if there were an order of monks who’s entire job was to train, with any and every weapon you could think of, to defend the Church, both at large, and at the smaller parish level? Something like The Heretics of St. Possenti. An order founded not on closeting yourself away from the world, but revolving around defending your piece of it.

Anyways, this is all just a very long-winded way to say that when I see crowds of communists rioting and burning things, at this point my brain turns to Molotov cocktails launched from a distance. If they’re going to burn this country down like they did in 2020, then let’s really turn up the heat and make sure we can identify their corpses by the burn marks.

Jul 02 2024

Have The Rules Changed Or Haven’t They?

     Back when certain Y-chromosome bearers decided it was time to take the thirteen colonies-become-states and make them into a nation – a decision some think they regretted afterward – they had certain rules in mind about governments and how they were supposed to be formed. The most important of those rules was no violence. They’d had their fill of it, and were uninterested in a second helping. Federal officials were to be selected according to procedures specified by the Constitution.

     Note that all those procedures were violence-free. Mostly they involved the casting and counting of ballots, whether by private citizens or by state legislatures. For those Constitutional procedures to be altered would require that the Constitution itself be amended, which has happened several times since then. See the Twelfth, Fifteenth, Seventeenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-Second, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments for the details.

     But today, certain parties are dissatisfied with the “no violence” constraint. It seems they want violence, whether threatened or actual, to be the deciding factor. Have a few examples:

     Let’s pass over the stupidity of those claims in silence. These are open calls for the assassination of Donald Trump. Why? Because the proponents thereof think that, should he live long enough, he’ll win back the presidency, and that’s just too… something. So the Constitutional procedures by which the president is elected must be set aside in favor of violence.

     How are you feeling just now, Gentle Reader? A mite uncomfortable? Perhaps a trifle sweaty? If everything seems to you to be chugging along nicely, see your brain care specialist at once. The Republic, which has been in considerable danger for some time already, is now teetering at the edge of the abyss.

     Time was, it was considered a threat to the national peace, barely short of criminally actionable, to make such statements. The FBI was dispatched to deal with persons such as these. But today the FBI is corrupt. It answers to corrupt overlords, whose ruling moral-ethical principle is can I get away with it? (No, it’s not yet a Praetorian Guard. Give it time.)

     I’ve written before that a militant minority that’s willing to “go to the mattresses” can overpower a lax, unfocused majority. There’s ample historical evidence. The tweets above aren’t necessarily dispositive, but they are suggestive of the sort of thinking that’s going on among America’s militant and openly violent Left.

     Among the Constitution’s original provisions was a somewhat indirect method for selecting the president:

  1. States would form their legislatures by procedures specified in their respective constitutions or charters.
  2. Those legislatures would then select electors – their number determined by each state’s Congressional representation – that would convene in the nation’s capital on a specified day.
  3. On that day the electors would poll themselves for their choice of the next president and vice-president.

     So even if the state legislatures were populated by men selected by popular vote, popular vote itself took no part in the selection of the president. That was up to the electors the legislatures chose – and those electors were not bound to vote in any particular way. The whole point was to trust the presidency, America’s highest public office, to the wisdom of carefully selected men, rather than to the passions of the great mass of citizens. Today, of course, all that remains of that original procedure is the Electoral College itself… which the Left is desperate to abolish.

     Today, what looms largest, both here and abroad, is the prospect of left-wing violence. Despite the (supposedly) secret ballot, many private citizens are afraid to vote for their preference. The consequences are less foreseeable than ever, while the possible damage to person, property, and civil peace are inestimable. Worst of all, the “forces of order” seem unequal to the challenge, whether from incapacity or disinclination. Faith in the prospect of a “peaceful transfer of power” is waning.

     I’m getting rather tired of it all. I like peace in the streets. I want to go about my business without fear of being assaulted for being a conservative. So if the rules must change, then how about we try strange women lying in ponds distributing swords again? It seemed to work fairly well the first time.

Jul 01 2024

Look East To Glimpse The West’s Future

     France has just held its “first round” parliamentary elections, and the results look very, very bad for the governing coalition headed by President Emanuel Macron. But my sympathies this morning aren’t for him and his ilk; rather, I’m worried for the common French citizen:

     The far Left is very strong in France. Ordinary citizens, most of whom are at least mildly sympathetic toward the Macron coalition, will find their lives disrupted by the chaos that has just begun. The National Rally (le Pen) will have a tough time persuading the citizenry that after they and the more traditional French Right form a coalition government – a longshot bet, as it is – all will be well. And so Mark Steyn’s observation is relevant yet again:

     If it were just terrorists bombing buildings and public transit, it would be easier; even the feeblest Eurowimp jurisdiction is obliged to act when the street is piled with corpses. But there’s an old technique well understood by the smarter bullies. If you want to break a man, don’t attack him head on, don’t brutalize him; pain and torture can awaken a stubborn resistance in all but the weakest. But just make him slightly uncomfortable, disrupt his life at the margin, and he’ll look for the easiest path to re-normalization. There are fellows rampaging through the streets because of some cartoons? Why, surely the most painless solution would be if we all agreed not to publish such cartoons. [From Mark Steyn’s America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It]

     If the Left can “restrain” itself to “mere” vandalism and looting, it has a good chance of “persuading” French voters to retreat from the rising populism of recent years and reaffirm the Macron coalition. If the rioting goes further, then we shall see whether the body count awakens the spines of the French people. But all of that is really peripheral to what’s on my mind just now…

     Do you remember the 2017 inauguration of Donald Trump? Do you remember what happened in Washington, D.C. that day? The “vagina costumes” were the mildest part of it; Antifa and Black Bloc completely disrupted the city that day and for several days afterward.

     Look to France for what will most likely follow the restoration of Donald Trump to the White House. And – drum roll, please – buy ammo.

Jun 30 2024

You can replace Drooling Joe, but with who?

It’s not like any of the Democrats waiting in the wings are any more likeable or relatable than Drooling Joe. In many cases, they’re worse.

Among alternative candidates, no candidate performs significantly better than Biden against Trump in a head-to-head race, though more voters indicate they are “not sure” compared to the most well-known candidates.

The Democrat party is the American Communist Party, and the leaders of the American Communist Party are far-left radicals. And Americans can see that. Sure, Nancy Pelosi will always get the vote in a city where they hold random anonymous gay orgies and then blame Moneypox on not wearing masks or something like that, but that crap won’t fly in Kansas.

Or Missouri.

Hell, it doesn’t even fly outside of Scat Fransicko. There’s a reason Northern California wants to break off and join the State of Jefferson. Northern Cali is populated by mostly normal people, not the mentally diseased freaks and nutjobs that Scat Fransicko seems to attract.

There’s a hard line in this country, where normal people look at the leaders of the American Communist Party and just say no. Who do the Democrats think will beat Trump? Kamala Harris, the whore of Scat Fransicko? She couldn’t get 1% of voters in the 2020 Democrat primary. Even Democrats don’t like her. She’s completely unlikeable, and she has a voice that makes people want to jam ice picks into their ears. Buttigeig? He’s done such a shitty job as Transportation Secretary that people actually know who the Transportation Secretary is. He’s a diversity hire who is completely incompetent, and it shows. Booker is a radical New Jersey nutjob. Newsome runs a state filled with used drug needles and feces maps. He faced recall in California, and I’m certain the only reason he wasn’t recalled was because of ballot harvesting *cough*voterfraud*cough*.

Witless Whitmer is a botoxed ghoul who had to use the FBI to make up a fake kidnapping plot in order to garner sympathy. Klobuchar is a harpy who, like Harris, abuses the people around her until they leave. Shapiro might have a chance, but he’s still done nothing of note, and Pritzker is a fat fuck from Crooked County, who if he didn’t pay off the mob bosses in Chicago wouldn’t have a chance in hell of ever seeing any elected seat.

Seriously. Name one Democrat with national name recognition who has ANY kind of record that normal people might vote for.

This is the end result of Bath-house Barry Obumblefuck, by the way. That commie agitator couldn’t stand to have anyone who might oppose him or steal his spotlight, and so he got rid of anyone who might do so. When Bath-house Barry left the White House, there was nobody but Hillary. The bench was wiped clear. The Clintons owned the DNC, and Bath-house Barry did away with any possible opposition to himself, the lightbringer, the lord, god, king and messiah to all the anti-American communists round the country.

The wages of sin is death. When you worship a mortal, as the Democrat party worships Bath-house Barry, bad things tend to happen.

Now, I have no doubt that the American Communist Party is already working on their next election fraud scheme. It’s the only way they win. It’s the only way the CAN win, given that the normal people in this country don’t want to be led by mentally diseased freaks and other low-IQ tyrants. The only question is, can we beat the margin of fraud. Will the DNC have to be blatant enough that people wake up to it? And what comes after that?

Buy more ammo.

Jun 30 2024

Uncertainties

     No one really likes them. Especially if they’re about big things. The following popped out of the memory bank a little while ago as I contemplated this subject:

     He felt toward Kathy a certain strange cynical trust, both absolute and unconvincing; one half of his brain saw her as reliable beyond the power of the telling of it, and the other half saw her as debased, for sale, and fucking up right and left. He could not put it together into one view. The two images of Kathy remained superimposed in his head.
     Maybe I can resolve my parallel conceptions of Kathy before I leave here, he thought. Before morning. But maybe he could stay even one day after that…it would be stretching it, however. How good really are the police? he asked himself. They managed to get my name wrong; they pulled the wrong file on me. Isn’t it possible they’ll fuck up all down the line? Maybe. But maybe not.
     He had mutually opposing conceptions of the police, too. And could not resolve those either. And so, like a rabbit, like Emily Fusselman’s rabbit, froze where he was. Hoping as he did so that everyone understood the rules: you do not destroy a creature that does not know what to do.

     That’s from Philip K. Dick’s masterpiece Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. I consider it his best novel. Its central character is Jason Taverner: an entertainer, a man of demonstrated gifts of several kinds, who’s thrust by an assault – intended to be fatal – into a nightmare world in which he can rely on almost nothing. Jason is accustomed to certainty, to being in control of his circumstances and assured of what’s coming. All of that has been ripped away from him. The subconscious conviction that he’s “a creature that does not know what to do” paralyzes him for a long spell.

     But as usual, there’s an opposing view:

     “The unknown,” said Faxe’s soft voice in the forest, “the unforetold, the unproven, that is what life is based on. Ignorance is the ground of thought. Unproof is the ground of action. If it were proven that there is no God there would be no religion. No Handdara, no Yomesh, no hearthgods, nothing. But also if it were proven that there is a God, there would be no religion. . . . Tell me, Genry, what is known? What is sure, predictable, inevitable—the one certain thing you know concerning your future, and mine?”
     “That we shall die.”
     “Yes. There’s really only one question that can be answered, Genry, and we already know the answer. . . . The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty: not knowing what comes next.”

     [Ursula Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness]

     What a contrast! Yet both these brilliant writers are correct. We both fear uncertainty and need it. Without uncertainty we would be limp, unmotivated. But with too much of it, or the wrong sort, we freeze in place, unable to think.

     Which is rich soil for today’s contemplation of just about everything that matters.

***

     There’s a whole lot of political uncertainty afoot. Republicans are uncertain that their chosen one will be a free man come Election Day; Democrats are uncertain whether their figurehead will survive that long. Major donors are uncertain whether they’ve wasted their money. Opinion-mongers and TV talking heads are uncertain what to say about any of it to preserve the perches from which they opine. (present company excepted). Voters are uncertain about what difference any of it will make.

     And Independence Day is just ahead. Glorious, isn’t it?

     But along with the political uncertainty comes a more practical kind, something the Founding Fathers would deplore: uncertainty about what our 88,000 governments have done, are doing, and will do. Take it seriously, Gentle Reader; this is vital stuff. What naughtiness have the alphabet agencies been up to, especially the DoJ and the “intelligence community?” What are all those bureaucrats doing to influence the outcome of the election? And what will change, if anything, should the Usurper Regime be ejected from power?

     Those uncertainties are in one way a source of certainty for private citizens. They compel us to hunker down: that is, to arrange our affairs in such a manner that will limit our maximum loss from whatever may come. A dear friend, in commenting on one of my novels, made mention of a term I’d previously not heard: the Xanatos Gambit. That consists of arranging for every possible choice to produce a victory of some kind. Hunkering down to limit all one’s downside risks regardless of the outcome of currently uncertain events is a play in that spirit, albeit pessimistic rather than optimistic about what’s coming.

     And we watch, and wait.

***

     America is rife with institutional uncertainties. What working American feels secure about his employment? What stockholder feels secure about his investments? What corporate manager feels secure about the direction law and regulation will take a year from now, to say nothing of the dollar? What husband feels secure about the health, affections, and loyalty of his wife? (Lean hard on that last one, gentlemen; after thirty-three years, my first act upon awakening is to check whether the C.S.O. is 1) still there, and 2) still alive.)

     Here again, uncertainty breeds a countervailing certainty: “I must do the best I can at everything.” There is no other prudent course when everything around us looks shaky. Only by one’s fullest and most careful efforts can he fortify his personal position against the tides of fortune. Ask your neighborhood “prepper” about the psychological benefits of having a lot of gold and silver coins, a pantry full of long shelf-life foods, and plenty of ammo. (NB: Concerning ammo, “Enough” plus “Lots More” == “Plenty.” Cf. explosives.)

     And we think, and prepare, and work ourselves to a frazzle, straining to keep our heads above the tide.

***

     I can’t let this go without touching on the deepest, most profoundly existential uncertainty of all: spiritual uncertainty.

     Every man that ever lives must decide on his life postulates:

  • What he fears;
  • What he desires;
  • What he believes;
  • The proper relations among those three.

     Some people never consciously contemplate those things, yet we all decide about them even if unaware that we’ve done so. Our desires and fears tend to be largely unconscious. They arise in large part from what we are rather than who we are. Yet they can be modified, or re-prioritized, by what we choose to believe.

     Belief is always a choice.

     If you’re familiar with Pascal’s Wager, you’re aware of the “limit your downside risks” approach to beliefs about God and the afterlife. It’s a betting man’s approach to things about which perfect certainty is difficult, verging on impossible. But it excludes the subject of belief itself in preference for a pragmatic approach to the future. One can choose either behavioral side of the Wager without ever choosing a conviction.

     And some do. But there’s a great forfeiture involved: such a person forfeits the extraordinary mental stimulus and emotional richness available from taking the choice itself seriously, plunging headlong into the matter with the determination that one way or the other, he will commit.

     Have a snippet from the novel-under-construction:

     “How’ve you felt about our talks with Father Ray?” Celia said.
     “I think they’re going well,” Juliette said. There was no hint of strain or doubt in her voice.
     “Meaning what?” Celia looked up into her lover’s face.
     She’s such a rock. Even I can’t read her some of the time.
     “We’re learning about the Faith and the Church,” Juliette said. “Some of it I remember from a few years back, but some of it is brand new.”
     “But is it working?”
     “Hm?”
     “On you. Do you think you like it?”
     Juliette grimaced. “It’s not something to like or dislike, Ceil. It’s something to accept or reject. We have to know what it’s about before we can do either.”
     “Oh.”
     “Having trouble with it?”
     “No… not really.” Celia chafed at her own confusion. “I mean, given the right assumptions, it’s all plausible. I’ve been wondering whether that’s enough. It doesn’t feel like it is.”
     Juliette smiled and squeezed her gently. “You’re worrying about the wrong thing.”
     “What do you mean?”
     “You’re you. Celia the genius. Galaxy-sized intellect that turns problems the size of mountains into dust with one tap of a pinky. You do it every day, or close to it. It’s your routine. But you can’t do that with faith. At least, not this faith.”
     Celia peered at her lover. Juliette seemed perfectly calm and untroubled. She exuded a sense of certainty, as if the subject posed her no difficulty. Yet something about it made Celia feel as if she were about to leave her body.
     Kate couldn’t help this way. She was a Catholic from birth. Absorbed it with her mother’s milk and never questioned it afterward.
     “Keep going, Jules,” she murmured. “You sound like you know what I need to know.”
     Juliette met her eyes and nodded once.
     “Faith isn’t about logic,” she said. “It can’t be illogical, but you can’t get there through logic alone. There’ve been some very smart people who never made it all the way because they insisted on proof. Logical proof, like faith is some sort of theorem with given conditions and postulates and lemmas and all that crap. Is that what’s got you twisted up?”
     Celia suppressed a tremor. “No, not exactly. It’s more… I keep expecting a burst of illumination. You know, for Father Ray to tell us the Big Secret that makes it all inevitable, and suddenly we have a breakthrough and become Christians.”
     Juliette smiled broadly. “You’re waiting for a dose of satori, huh? Like the Buddhists? Become an Enlightened One, walk the Noble Eightfold Path, lose all desire for earthly things and seek the fulfillment of nirvana?”
     Celia cringed and hid her face against her lover’s side. “Please don’t laugh at me, Jules. This is tough for me.”
     Tougher than I expected it to be.
     “Sorry, babe.” Juliette squeezed her. “I’m not making fun of you. It’s more that I’m thinking about what I used to expect. Jesus descending from the clouds, opening my heart with a touch on the brow, proclaiming me a true child of God, then wishing me a nice life and sending me off to play. Taking all the work out of it.” She chuckled. “It’s probably why I didn’t get it in the first place.”
     “I still don’t follow you.”
     “I know. The work isn’t intellectual. It’s almost exactly the opposite. It’s getting set inside yourself to offer yourself to God all the way. As a servant committed to doing his will, with the teachings of Christ to guide you.”
     Servant.
     Celia was torn by a blend of longing and fear. She felt as if she stood at the threshold of something even more final than death, a complete negation of self. Yet it called to her with an inexplicable sweetness.
     “I worked it out a couple of days ago,” Juliette said. “It’s not about smarts. It’s about commitment. The willingness to give everything. An act of courage.”
     “A blind step into the dark,” Celia whispered.
     Juliette shrugged. “Or the light.”
     “You sound… ready.”
     Juliette nodded. “I am.”

     I hope that requires no further explanation.

***

     We often address our uncertainties with distaste, even loathing. Yet they keep us going. They energize and actuate us in ways of which we aren’t always conscious. And so it must be, for a life of perfect certainty is no place for a project pursuer (cf. Loren Lomasky).

     But in a final irony, the greatest uncertainty is the one that informs and conditions all the others. Our choice there, as Celia says above, is “a blind step into the dark.” It cannot be resolved under the veil of time. Yet its influence on all the other choices we make in addressing our uncertainties is all-enveloping.

     Just a few thoughts for the last day of June. I hope you found them diverting, at least. And may God bless and keep you all.

Jun 30 2024

The Unanswerable Weapon

     Alinsky told us:

     Tucker Carlson is a national treasure.

Load more