Forms Of Community Service

     I found this gem at Kenny “Wirecutter” Lane’s site:

     [He] had a video rental store, that kept getting broken into, so he slept there for a couple nights. After about a week, someone broke in, a couple of 17 or 18 year olds. The story he told was that one of them grabbed a shovel he had in the store, and tried to attack him with it. So he shot him with his shotgun, in the chest and killed him DRT. The other one busted the door down in the back and ran out, getting away.
     The DA wanted to file charges against him but he knew that there was no way he could get a jury in our town to vote for him to go to jail, when our area already was tired of punks getting away with all of the crimes even as far back as that. But they did make his life a tough thing, for quite awhile.

     The protagonist should have received a medal and the key to the city. However, “the authorities” are and have always been hostile to persons who act in the community’s interest without the participation of the police. But the truly salient point is this:

     If the government is cruel, the governor’s life is not safe. If you tax too high, the revenue will yield nothing. If you make the criminal code sanguinary, juries will fail to convict. If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Compensation

     Keep this in mind. I predict that it will come in handy in the years to come.

Inverting The Pyramid

     The news is quite static this morning, so I thought I might spend some time musing about more abstract but potentially more important ideas. If you’re easily bored by such things, I recommend surfing over to Sunny Skyz. That would spend your next fifteen minutes more productively than reading my drivel.

     A great deal of hand-wringing has occurred over a question that currently bedevils the Right: If it has become our duty to rebel, who is to lead us?

     That glosses over the question of what sort of rebellion our time demands. Nevertheless, it’s a common theme in all discussions of how to “take our country back” from the Usurper Regime and the various agents of destruction who’ve leagued with them. Many are willing to follow, but few are willing to take the lead. Fewer still would be deemed qualified. If the reasons are “obvious,” that does not reduce the urgency of the question.

     Leadership is generally conceived as a singular attribute. That is: a given group looks to “the leader” rather than “a leader.” But there are alternative approaches. Armies have used one of them for centuries.

     Hierarchically structured organizations have a great deal of similarity to one another. There’s a Maximum Leader a.k.a. the Big Boss or the Man at the Top. Below him are a small number of first-echelon sub-leaders who report to him, a larger group of second-echelon sub-sub-leaders who report to the guys in the first echelon, and so forth down the pyramid until we reach “Walt.” Walt, of course, is the guy at the bottom of the pyramid where the actual work gets done. He and his fellows actually tote the guns, produce the widgets, flip the burgers, administer the sacraments, or what have you. The unspoken premise behind such a structure is that Big Decisions – the ones that most characterize the direction of the organization – originate from the Maximum Leader. Lesser leaders produce directives of lesser scope that affect fewer persons.

     But what happens if we remove Walt?

     Suddenly the picture changes. All those persons clothed with varying levels of authority look a little silly. Their status meetings, their weekly and monthly reports, their spreadsheets and PERT charts, are revealed as vacuities. No one’s shooting at the enemy, or making widgets, or flipping burgers, and so on. The organization’s raison d’etre has vanished.

     Walt and his coworkers are revealed as the genuinely important members of the organization. The men in jeans matter more than the men in suits. Sometimes it takes a mass walkout to jar those so-called leaders back to reality.

     We in the Right should ponder that truth for a while. While we lament the lack of a leader, we should give some thought to its implications.

***

     There’s a quote from a little-known thinker, George Herron, that I particularly like:

     The possession of power over others is inherently destructive both to the possessor of power and to those over whom it is exercised. And the great man of the future, in distinction from the great man of the past, is he who will seek to create power in people, and not gain power over them. The great man of the future is he who will refuse to be great at all, in the historic sense; he is the man who will literally lose himself, who will altogether diffuse himself in the life of humanity.

     The “great man of the past” was almost invariably a Maximum Leader figure. He didn’t tote a gun, produce widgets, et cetera. He commanded others who went forth to do as he bid them. Herron’s “great man of the future” would not command but empower. He would convey to others what they need to become as great as is he. In other words, he would negate the historic sense of the leader and of leadership.

     Imagine that our grunt worker Walt takes young colleague Stan under his wing and teaches him how to do what Walt himself does. In doing so he would exemplify Herron’s great man of the future. That kind of tutoring might not be what Walt does all the time – Walt has widgets of his own to produce, after all – but ultimately it would be of greater impact. For productivity, it would surely eclipse Walt’s manager’s spreadsheets and status reports.

     Perhaps the pro-freedom Right should be thinking along these lines. Rather than moaning for a leader who’d lead us like a Roman legion, why not promote freedom by helping others to become personally freer? It requires some thought:

  • What activities promote personal freedom?
  • Who is pursuing those activities?
  • What do they need to become [more] effective, whether in freeing themselves or in helping others?

     Harry Browne had something to say about this:

     If you’re not free now, it might be because you’ve been preoccupied with people or institutions that have restrained your freedom.

     Perhaps we can do better.

***

     The small group is the best medium for discussing such things and germinating ideas. However, there are traps here. Success can breed failure. Individuals and small groups that become apostles for freedom can also become condensation nuclei for much larger groups. Not only do large groups tend to develop diffuse agendas and get much less done per capita — remember the 80/20 rule — they attract the power-hungry.

     Along with that, groups tend to produce leaders of the old type even if they have no such agenda. There are always stronger and weaker voices, more and less forceful personalities. If what matters is individual empowerment, the emergence of a recognized leader is a sign of regression. So also is a focus on government and government policies.

     That’s about as far as I can take this in a single morning, with so many other things clamoring for my attention. If it strikes you as more froth than useful…well, no one hits a homer every time he comes to the plate. And I did suggest the alternative of Sunny Skyz. Those folks who detach eels from the nostrils of young Hawaiian seals might have some better ideas.

Death By a Thousand Cuts

Americans are not, generally, petty people. Other than a few sub-groups (clannish Hill Folk, gang members – at least the most vicious ones, and ex-spouses with a grudge), we tend to attribute disputes to differences in viewpoint, and are ready to shake hands when the dispute is resolved.

There are even those that have forgiven the cold-blooded murder of a family member. Those are often those crediting the Christian creed of “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive others”.

That is NOT the type of Christian I am. I might not attend their execution, or work relentlessly to keep them from getting parole. But I would take a grim satisfaction in seeing the cold-eyed killer sentenced for that crime.

We’re that way even in highly contentious endeavors such as politics. Live and let live.

That’s how the Left is killing us. They are counting on us NOT to pursue grievances to final resolution. They are anticipating that we will accept their half-assed apologies, depend on their ‘having learned their lesson’, and be gobsmacked once again, when it’s clear that, far from mending their ways, the Left has returned to the Same Old, Same Old.

What brought this to mind was a long post on Ace of Spades, that listed one after another abuses, crimes, and underhand dealing by the Left and Their Allies, that, together, amounted to the famed Death By a Thousand Cuts. See here what that practice – known as Lingchi – was.

That we suffer IS the point. That such suffering causes such a terror of further torture – in our own self, our families, and anyone who might also be inclined to provide resistance – is the point of it.

So, then, the frankly ridiculous demands for PUBLIC retribution, the constant chipping away at those who stick their necks out, and other ‘small ways to torture’. Individually, each assault on our freedom to dissent seems like the bite of a gnat.

Together, as I can attest, having been assaulted by CLOUDS of sand gnats, these tiny bites can cause a lot of damage.

That’s the current state of our public discourse in America. We are pursued by relentless ideologues, and their Allies (LGBT+…….., unhappy, hysterical women, Beta men, and, frankly, cowards). We need to Man and Woman UP, and put on a full court press to fight them.

This is NOT what we look forward to. Americans tend to prefer very violent, short-term wars. We like to throw everything into the fight, including the kitchen sink, killing everything in sight until there is silence.

The Left, on the other hand, prefers the Long War. Such a strategy works well with limited troops and supplies. They get their money and weapons from their enemies (Soros is NOT spending HIS money, nor are the others. They are relying on foreign contributions, foundation giveaways, and government grants.)

Post in the comments if you have any ideas about how to get local Minutemen organized.

Recent Revelations

     “You still haven’t got over the idea that politicians are important because the newspapers tell you so.” – Sir Frederick Hoyle

     It’s become critical to our individual and social mental health that we draw a firm distinction between two categories of vermin. The first of these, the politician, runs for elective office. If he achieves it, thereafter he will possess the appearance of power. The second, who was once called a gray eminence, is the actual master of the powers of the State. He may not be known to the public by name or face, but he has greater sway over policy and power than the politicians he “serves.”

     The major media “report” on the words and deeds of politicians. Yet in the post-World War era, it is almost never the case that politicians decide on how the State’s powers shall be wielded.

     For the past two years it has been brutally apparent that the supposed president of these United States – Joseph R. Biden, a politician – has no significant influence on the use of federal power. The contempt of the gray eminences who manipulate him for Us the Hoi-Polloi has become ever more visible. It’s not unknown for those of high estate to dismiss the sentiments of the common folk. Yet in the pre-World War era, those who wielded power have at least pretended to respect us, reality notwithstanding.

     Biden’s most recent “press conference” has made such pretenses impossible:

     President Biden is no stranger to detailed cheat sheets when speaking to the press, but the president’s team seems to have taken things up a notch after he revealed a pre-written question from a reporter during Wednesday’s press conference.

     As Biden spoke alongside South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol in the White House Rose Garden, a photographer captured a small cheat-sheet in the president’s hand signaling he had advanced knowledge of a question from Los Angeles Times journalist Courtney Subramanian. The small paper also included a picture of the reporter along with the pronunciation breakdown of her last name. “Question #1” was handwritten at the top of the sheet, indicating the president should call on her first at the conclusion of his remarks.

     Here’s a rather blatant shot of the cheat sheet’s stage directions for the ersatz president:

     And here’s a pretty good look at scripted question page #1:

     It couldn’t get much clearer, could it? A large portion of the press has been “tamed” to this farce and goes along with the puppet show uncomplainingly. Even among them must be some individuals who chafe at the disrespect being shown toward their once-honorable trade. Yet there are no indications of a brewing rebellion from that sector.

     Quoth John Hinderaker:

     One wonders what the editors of the L.A. Times would say about this: enacting a pantomime with the President, in which their reporter plays the part of an independent journalist. Is that their idea of honest journalism?

     But they will never have to answer that question, because there is no one to ask it. The other news organizations are playing for the same team. And I think they all agree that this is the kind of thing you have to do when your man is, unfortunately, senile.

     “Your man.” The man the press strained all credulity to promote as a worthy aspirant to the Oval Office. The man whose half-century of perfidies and deceits they resolutely refused to mention. The man for whose sake they collaborated in the defamation and de facto silencing of the sitting, wildly popular president.

     The gray eminences have the press by the short hairs, and the masters of the press know it full well. Once you’ve lied in service to a public figure, he owns you. He’ll persuade you to lie ever more dramatically and volubly, until you’ve fatally undermined your own credibility. After that he can end your career whenever he pleases, with one public utterance – and in defense of their own careers, your colleagues in the press will help him do it.

     The big story these past few days has been the removal of Tucker Carlson from his commentator’s perch at FOX News. Who among our Gentle Readers thinks there might have been an attempt to bring Carlson into the fold? If there was such an attempt, it clearly didn’t have the desired effect. Yet until his firing, Carlson was the most influential commentator in any medium – and his firing is likely to have enhanced his reputation, at least among Americans in the Right. Streisand Effect, anyone?

     With this most recent display of contempt for Americans’ intelligence, the stakes have been maximized. Perhaps the Left has a firm grip on the electoral machinery, such that the results of future elections will be predetermined regardless of who votes and how. That will do them no good in the court of popular sentiment. What remains to be seen is whether any great number of us are ready for some “Irish democracy.” I could hardly imagine a greater or more blatant justification.

The Loss of Information on the Internet

So much of it is now (at best) thinly-veiled propaganda, disguised press releases by partisan sources, gossip and junk. Blogs are now assuming new importance, as they serve as an alternative to the Corporate/NGO/Partisan ‘News’.

Ace of Spades has a good post on just how that’s done.

I spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks NOT on the internet. Oh, I USED it – to borrow library books, pay bills, keep in touch by email, and amusing myself by looking for funny memes.

I’d been too under the weather with a nasty and prolonged asthma attack, to care much about keeping up with the news. What reading I did was mostly fluff.

I didn’t miss much, other than up to the minute news about Carlson’s leaving Fox News. It was worth it to take a break from it all. I feel refreshed and with some energy today.

I may try 1 or 2 day breaks in the future. Sunday seems like a good day to start.

Great Men And Superheroes

     If you attended high school around the same time as I did, you undoubtedly learned about the Great Man theory of history. For our younger Gentle Readers:

     The Great Man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of “great men”, or heroes: highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact. The theory was popularized in the 1840s by Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. But in 1860 Herbert Spencer formulated a counter-argument that has remained influential throughout the 20th century to the present; Spencer said that such great men are the products of their societies, and that their actions would be impossible without the social conditions built before their lifetimes.

     Carlyle stated that “The history of the world is but the biography of great men”, reflecting his belief that heroes shape history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration. In his book On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, Carlyle set out how he saw history as having turned on the decisions of “heroes”, giving detailed analysis of the influence of several such men (including Muhammad, Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, Pericles, and Napoleon). Carlyle also felt that the study of great men was “profitable” to one’s own heroic side; that by examining the lives led by such heroes, one could not help but uncover something about one’s true nature.

     The critical word in the above is heroes. I’ve written before about the nature of heroism, and why I try, as a fiction writer, to depict heroes. Sir Thomas Carlyle’s view of heroes as the principal shapers of the great events of history may be accurate – certainly it’s hard to imagine faceless drones bringing about the American Revolution or the World Wars – but to my mind the concept says more about human yearnings and aspirations than about history.

     Who are history’s greatest figures? Which men are seen to have shaped the centuries behind us, whether for good or for ill? What did they contribute that had the most effect? Was it their individual deeds, or their thinking and the expressions thereof?

     The real movers and shakers weren’t the charismatic leaders, but the innovative thinkers. The ideas they promulgated are why we remember them, even if we aren’t fully aware of it. Those whose ideas were good raised Mankind to new heights. Those whose ideas were bad precipitated great destruction.

     Thomas Jefferson didn’t personally lead the American Revolution. It was his insight that men must be free that gave the Revolution the impetus it needed. Adolf Hitler didn’t personally massacre millions. It was his vision of a Greater Germany, a nation that would bestride the world by its racial superiority, that gave the Third Reich its killing force.

     But in the most common case, when we fantasize about heroes, we don’t endow them with great ideas. Rather, we endow them with great physical powers, clothe them in spandex, and send them out to battle evil personally. Superhero fiction is one of the best-selling marketing categories. Superheroes have been the principal fodder of the movie industry for a number of years now.

     I can’t escape the feeling that We the People are waiting for a superhero to arise who’ll take the responsibility of saving the Republic on himself. Like Jesus and the moneychangers, he’ll personally drive the villains out of the corridors of power, such that the good guys can have the Temple back. Failing that, he’ll become our war leader. His charisma will rally the forces of the righteous for an irresistible march on Mordor on the Potomac.

     To be maximally gentle, I wouldn’t advise you to bet the mortgage money on it.

***

     Throughout recorded history, the greater part of Mankind has striven in vain to lay its burdens on the shoulders of others. That it can’t be done “should” be “obvious” by now. Occasionally, the opposite approach to life – individual responsibility – has gained a foothold and shown the world its superiority. The response of the masses has always been massive envy: the urge to tear down those who have succeeded through their own initiative and their own efforts.

     Please don’t interpret “success” in a narrow material sense. He who has achieved personal peace, even if he wears rags and totes a beggar’s bowl, has succeeded. Few of us could say as much about ourselves.

     No superhero can bring you peace. No guru; no self-help lecturer; no talk-show host. The job is inescapably yours. Similarly, no superhero can set you free. It’s a state you must achieve and secure for yourself.

     We have enough history to know what we need. The ideas are in the writings of the truly great men, the liberators: Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Schiller, Goethe. Note that “those who have not joy” have striven to remove those persons and their ideas from the education of our young. Oops, my mistake! It isn’t “history” any more, is it? It’s “global studies,” at least here on Long Island.

     Robert A. Heinlein once described our continent as “a place where the soul could grow.” That poetic formulation embeds an essential truth that must not be overlooked. Man must grow to succeed, for the opposite of growth is death. Regard in that light the open desires – the social and political agenda – of the villains of our time. Quoth Heinlein:

     “We see the history of the world as a series of crises in a conflict between two opposing philosophies. Ours is based on the notion that life, consciousness, intelligence, ego is the important thing in the world….That puts us in conflict with every force that tends to destroy, deaden, degrade the human spirit, or to make it act contrary to its nature….
     “The crisis has been growing on us since Napoleon. Europe has gone, and Asia surrendered to authoritarianism, nonsense like the ‘leader principle,’ totalitarianism, all the bonds placed on liberty that treat men as so many economic and political units with no importance as individuals. No dignity, do what you’re told, believe what you’re told, and shut your mouth! Workers, soldiers, breeding units…
     “If that were the object of life, there would have been no point in including consciousness in the scheme at all!”
     “This continent has been a refuge of freedom, a place where the soul could grow. But the forces that killed enlightenment in the rest of the world are spreading here. Little by little they have whittled away at human liberty and human dignity. A repressive law, a bullying school board, a blind dogma to be accepted under pain of persecution, doctrines that will shackle men and put blinders on their eyes so that they will never regain their lost heritage.”

     It is a battle each of us must fight and win for himself. If you succeed in gaining allies and assistance in the struggle, all the better. Nevertheless, the principal effort must be yours. Moreover, I contend that you already possess weapons sufficient to prevail: your innate sense for reality, for right and wrong, and for who is on which side.

     And in your every interaction with others, preach Christ.

The Really Important News Of The Day

     We have it from the very top:

     You have your orders, Gentle Readers: For the rest of the week, whenever you see a lesbian, call out “I see one! Over there!” and point as directly as possible at the lesbian you’ve spotted. Remember that all lesbian spottings must be confirmed by at least one other participant to be deemed official. Final tallies will be announced and awards presented on Sunday. (NB: This doesn’t apply solely to “Spotted Lesbians,” a rare subspecies whose habitat has shrunk dangerously in recent years.)

     According to his spokesperson, Howard Stern will not be participating this year.

The Tucker Carlson Firing: One Possible Reason

     While we’re doomed to be forever uncertain about the exact reason FOX News fired Tucker Carlson, I think we can adduce some of the ingredients. One that looms large for me, at least is this:

The Right is forbidden to talk about
Evil
From a respected media perch.

     FOX News wasn’t always considered “respectable media.” When it was new, the Legacy Media did their utmost to destroy it through a concentrated campaign of dismissal, denigration, and degradation. It didn’t work; FOX had found an unserved niche and had addressed it in a winning fashion. But over the years since its birth, FOX has shed many of the people who made it a winner…and their ideas with them. The current management seems ardent to join the larger media corporations as a “big player,” a status difficult to achieve for a cablecaster.

     That means “going along to get along:” remaining within the bounds of reportage and commentary the Legacy Media are willing to tolerate. That’s a stance the previous FOX management would not countenance. And Tucker Carlson has proved unwilling to be domesticated. So, like Bill O’Reilly and Dan Bongino before him, he had to go.

     In the clip below, carefully scissored from Carlson’s address to the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary gala this past Friday, he expresses a position the Legacy Media find anathema, to wit:

  • That political harmony can only exist when all the participants are agreed on ultimate objectives;
  • That this is no longer the case in these United States, for one major participant promotes evil;
  • That this mandates a change in our attitudes and lexicon when we approach political “issues.”

     It’s only six minutes and a few seconds long. Please watch it.

Vampire Finance

I’d never heard this phrase, but it is surprisingly apt.

It’s been going on for a very long time.

No Pretense

     The “media megaphone” (William E. Simon) will no longer tolerate sharply dissenting voices:

     Now, for a Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch, this is “yesterday’s news” – literally. But Beck makes a connection that’s likely to have evaded even some of our most vigilant: the major automakers’ rumbling about no longer building AM radios into their offerings.

     AM “talk radio,” for those readers whose memory is incomplete, was where the Right found a home. Rush Limbaugh may have gone to his reward, but his legacy remains…for the present. But “talk radio” is at its most active during those time periods when working people are – guess where? — in their cars. Get the picture?

     They’re not even trying to hide their agenda. The Right shall be permitted a sharply delimited range of expression and nothing beyond it. A “tamed Right” preserves the fiction that free expression is still honored. But once the Official Line has been decreed, any commentator who puts a foot across it will be purged.

     I’m fairly sure Tucker Carlson will find a perch somewhere, probably on a streaming service. He’s only the most popular video commentator now practicing. In the video above, Glenn Beck throws his hat into the ring. If he should succeed in winning Carlson for Blaze TV, that service will experience a surge of subscribership that’s likely to bust the Internet. Whether that would trigger a fury of attempts to “cancel” The Blaze, or wherever else Carlson might emerge, we must wait and see.

Busy, Busy

A lot has been going on:

  • My brother is much better. Today, I checked him out on driving, and he did fine. That should reduce the number of trips I make to the West Side of Cleveland (about 40 minute trip to his house). More importantly, that will give him some freedom and mobility.
  • After mid-May, we should only own ONE house (and have a nice pile of cash). That should make it much easier to manage the Lorain house and grounds.
  • We will be using some of the money to pay for some long planned improvements to the new house – greenhouse, a railing on the front porch, a chair lift for the basement, painting the siding and garage, fixing up a retaining wall. Lots of little things. And we should still have some money left over for trips for FUN!

But, all of that entails some work and running around – as, for instance, today’s trip to a home improvement store for a new freezer – this time an upright freezer. I had to hold firm. My husband wanted another chest freezer. The concept that I wasn’t able to reach most of the contents inside it was not penetrating his skull. It was more efficient, therefore better. That I was generally the one that needed to reach things was unimportant. However, today, I will have my input.

I’m WAY behind on gardening. Recent snows and torrential freezing rains make that seem like an inspired notion, but, no. I was just lazy. I’m amazed that some of the flowers that I planted the first year survived the extreme weather. I made some plans for kickstarting the garden,

My day? I got up early, ate and took meds, dressed, walked and fed the dog, then headed over to my brother’s. He tried driving for the first time in 2 months. He was fine. We went shopping, then I headed for home.

At home, I ate lunch, took care of some paperwork, then went with my husband to return the trailer to U-Haul. After that, chiropractor (him), lunch, then appliance shopping. I wasn’t able to make a decision, so we got some information, and headed home.

Honestly, not all that much, but I’m wiped out. It’ll be an early night again.

Indecision or waffling on making a decision is MORE tiring than just getting the job done. Unfortunately, due to a family illness, I’m finding it difficult to handle any decision-making at present. I’m hoping that my relative gets her medical team to get off the dime and decide to either operate, or take other action. The problem is potentially life-threatening, and really can’t wait until they get around to it.

Aspects of This Are Worth Cheering

Do you see why?

Note how this recent(?) video becomes more significant after Tucker’s abrupt firing.

Day Off

     As I’ve been neglecting my fiction, please allow me a day off from ranting at Liberty’s Torch. Rather than pontificate here, I must service my characters, at least sufficiently to quell any potential mutiny. (Some of them have been threatening to form a union.) So I’ll wish all our Gentle Readers a good day and hope to be back tomorrow. Be well!

A New Page

     Yes, friends: the main portion of the site isn’t quite enough. To keep the “Baseline Essays” company, we now have a page dedicated to The LIS Codex. Surf on over and give it a look. You may find that you have something to add. The instructions for contributing are in the first portion.

Horse Latitudes

     [The following was first posted in September of 2003, at the old Palace of Reason. It appears as it did then, with one correction. Back then the subject of abortion was as contentious as it is today, owing to the election of a sincerely pro-life president. That always upsets the pro-abortion forces. The overturning of Roe v. Wade and Florida’s recent enactment of a sharp limit on abortions has raised the rhetorical temperature to that level once again. — FWP]

***

     One can be the strongest possible adherent to the right to life, yet condone killing, under delimited circumstances, and still be a completely moral man. Conversely, one can disbelieve that any such right exists, yet condemn killing under any circumstances, and still be a completely moral man. One’s moral status depends on what one does and abets others in doing, not on what one believes.

     Rights are abstractions: important and useful ones, but abstractions nonetheless. If the assertion of a right reflects an underlying reality, still, context will play a part. No abstraction can capture the whole of reality; there are too many possibilities.

     David Friedman once advanced the following poser: A lunatic is ranging freely in a crowd, killing persons who, for whatever reason, can neither resist nor escape. The sole instrument you could use against him is a rifle that does not belong to you. It lies in plain sight, on the property of a curmudgeon — not this Curmudgeon, thank you — who has proclaimed that he will prosecute anyone who trespasses on his domain. What do you do?

     Nearly every decent man would snatch up the rifle and act. Virtually no one would be paralyzed, unable to calculate whether the violation of the rifle-owner’s property rights was justified by the carnage he could stop. Few would fear the consequences.

     Friedman’s conundrum is an example of lifeboat ethics. Lifeboat ethics apply to situations in which contextual constraints make it impossible to preserve all recognized rights intact. Such situations are always painful — someone’s going to get it in the shorts, no matter what anyone does — but history offers no evidence that reality concerns itself with human suffering.

     In the days of wind-powered ships, traders bound for the New World frequently found themselves becalmed in the still waters of the Caribbean. To be unable to move on the open sea, with only limited supplies of food and water, forced them to unpleasant measures. All too often, they had to jettison dozens of horses to drown in the tropical waters, to avert that fate from themselves.

     Animal rights advocates would have a theoretical problem with this scenario. But how much of an impediment would it be in practice? Would their belief that a horse has the same right to life as a man keep them from jettisoning the horses? Would they willingly die of thirst to preserve the horses’ lives? Surely they wouldn’t throw men overboard instead?

     Even the most dedicated vegan would yield to the demands of human survival. Those who balked might well find themselves classed with the horses.

     Survival is the sole unchallengeable imperative. Even the Catholic Church, the strongest pro-life force in the world, will condone an unintentional abortion if it occurs in the course of a procedure undertaken to save the mother’s life. One cannot be pro-life yet demand that others die, if they have the means of saving themselves. He who wants to live and can contrive to do so must be allowed the latitude, other things being equal.

     But in non-lifeboat cases, the right to life is the Ace of trumps. Decent men do not condone the killing of innocents. Therefore, in all cases where the use of lethal violence is contemplated, the first question must be: Does the object of that violence have a right to life?

     No consideration of convenience is allowed. No room can be made for hypotheticals. Only the rights of the creature to be killed really matter.

     That’s why the abortion debate is such a horror. One side has stoutly refused to address the rights-status of the developing baby. Instead, its advocates blather about convenience and hypotheticals. What if the mother cannot afford to raise the child? What if she can’t afford to pay for the delivery, or for the infant’s care while she works? What if the child is abused or neglected?

     Shams and evasions, all of it. It’s the greatest disgrace in American political debate since the Dred Scott decision, and for the same reason.

     Dred Scott was the Supreme Court case in which Chief Justice Roger Taney, to uphold slavery under American law, ruled that a Negro was not a human being, and thus had no rights a white man was bound to respect. By implication, the pro-abortion forces hold that a baby in the womb — a “fetus” in their preferred terminology — is not human, for it has no rights a born person is bound to respect.

     They don’t say so explicitly. It would make the issues too clear. It would raise the rhetorical temperature to the boiling point, perhaps beyond. So they evade the issue, and talk of convenience and hypotheticals instead. Some raise the “rape exception,” as if executing an innocent bystander were an acceptable consequence of a heinous crime.

     But were the rights of the baby conceded, the argument would go on. For the other side has stoutly refused to address the cost of banning all abortions — violation of the rights of all potential mothers.

     Abortion has become very easy. The cost is not severe. More, several of the most popular methods are identical to treatments for common complaints. Menstrual extraction, for example, is indistinguishable from an early-term induced miscarriage. To act against all abortions, the State would require the latitude of installing pregnancy monitors in the bodies of all fertile women. That would reduce women to brood mares, whose rights were subjugated to their fertility. It would be the vilest tyranny in the history of Man.

     A workable law against abortion, that respected the rights of each woman to privacy in her intimate affairs, could only address those cases where there was irrefutable evidence that a pregnant woman had gone to a licensed medical professional to have her pregnancy terminated. In the early term — say, the first thirteen weeks — the law would perforce be mute. The unwilling mother-to-be could inflict unspeakable cruelty on her defenseless dependent without interference from anything but her conscience. Her convenience and hypothetical qualms could be fully served.

     And we who treasure innocent human life would have to be satisfied. We would have done all we could do without bringing about still worse. We could weep in silence.

The New Banana Republic

     David presents a tweet from Catturd, dated yesterday. It presents part of a speech by Glenn Beck:

     Yes, I certainly feel that way…but note: Beck delivered that speech in 2020. Here’s the whole thing, for those who are interested:

     How do you feel today? How would you guess Beck feels today?

The Follies Of Experts

     Your Curmudgeon is coming to believe that “experts” and the relentless promotion thereof exist solely to reinforce “official” BS and intimidate those who see through it. Perhaps he’s even a bit late to the party, as that seems to be a burgeoning recognition among Americans generally. Nevertheless, it’s a notion that deserves some exploration, considering how much BS “experts” have bombarded us with these past few centuries.

     Recently, Elon Musk made a little news by stating something “obvious:”

     And in a flash, the “experts” were all over him like a cheap suit:

     But demographic experts disagree, telling Insider in 2022 that global birth rates would likely continue to increase this century, before very gradually leveling out.

     Your Curmudgeon merely shook his head. None so blind as those that will not see, et cetera. But that’s Mankind for you.

***

     Demography is a “bulk” study. It veers away from the sort of disambiguation that reveals what one really needs to know and watch. If one looks at Musk’s statement closely, meaning begins to filter through that the “experts” are loath to admit. For your disambiguated pleasure:

     “If we don’t make enough people to at least sustain our numbers, perhaps increase a little bit, then civilization’s gonna crumble.”

     Reflect on the emphasized words for a moment. Do you think this exceptionally bright and alert man was talking about the Africans? Perhaps the teeming hordes of the Chinese? Well then, what about the indigenes of Central and South America? You know, the ones that the European colonial pioneers found when they first came to the New World? Do you think the “experts” who were quick to contradict Musk were sincerely ignorant of what’s really at stake?

     Musk was talking about abortion and birth control. These practices are dominant in those nations founded by what we usually refer to as the white race. Euro-Caucasians. The people that gave the world what we call “civilization”…and, to be perfectly fair, the race that seems to be dismantling it as we speak.

     The white race is slowly ceasing to reproduce. Yes, we still indulge the “limbic instinct,” but we tend to avert the reproductive consequences far more often than those of other climes. Mark Steyn wrote a rather detailed book about it, in case any Gentle Reader is unaware. He made no reference to racial disparities, but the facts are quite plain from the nations and numbers he cited.

     It’s been said that it’s difficult verging on impossible to get people to reproduce for a future they don’t expect to see. In point of fact, the balance of incentives is worse than that. Consider all the following:

  • Recent generations of whites have been indoctrinated to hate themselves.
  • They’ve also been taught to fear the future.
  • The inducements to a hedonistic lifestyle have never before been so strong.
  • The costs of averting pregnancy and parturition have never been so low.
  • By comparison, producing and rearing children has never been so difficult, costly, and hazardous.
  • Legal barriers against abortion and birth control are rare and easily circumvented.

     Consider this as well: Who is encouraging whites to have kids? Can you name any agency or institution that’s been doing so this past half-century? The balance of incentives and inducements appears to be sharply tilted against reproduction.

     Today, the peoples that still have kids are predominantly nonwhite. More, they largely live outside the First World.

***

     Your Curmudgeon doubts severely that Elon Musk’s statement will bring about any significant change in demographic trends. It won’t cause young whites to say to one another, “Geez, he’s right. Let’s get started on a good-sized family so there’ll be a high civilization for the human future to enjoy!” But that won’t help to calm the “experts.” They have a mission: to defend the glamorous, convenient, lucrative status quo, made available to you in large measure by abortion and birth control. There shall be no besmirching of these sacraments! Too many rice bowls are at stake!

     So we will continue to decline. Others will displace us – possibly with the instruments we’ve developed. (“Cultural appropriation,” anyone?) It’s happening slowly, but it’s happening. Given the balance of incentives, the odds are against a resurgence of Christian-Enlightenment civilization. And yes: in the distance you can hear various “experts” saying “It isn’t happening…and anyway, it would be a good thing if it were.”

     Perhaps Aaron Clarey has the right of it after all. Your Curmudgeon pontificates; you decide.

It Won’t Go Away Part 2: “It”

     Yesterday’s essay brought only one comment and a single ping. Perhaps our Gentle Readers were nonplussed by it. I could hardly blame them; it was a “passion piece,” the sort that writes itself with the fervor the subject aroused in me. If it left readers wondering when the men in the white coats toting butterfly nets would come to call at the Fortress, I’d understand.

     But the subject is…well…real. It won’t go away. Ultimately it’s self-defending – no one gets away with flouting the laws of the universe for very long – but the interim can be somewhat trying. The longer the sane people of the world delay about coming to its aid, the worse the destruction and terror the corrections will cause.

     The thing is, the flouters have an ally. And it might not be who you think.

***

     The central, inescapable tragedy of the past century – the one that has colored every aspect of American life to some degree – is power politics: men struggling over the privilege of using force against their fellow men. Here’s L. Neil Smith’s depiction of a genuinely free society that gets a glimpse at the history of our own:

     They learned a great deal, none of it encouraging: the Revolution; the Whiskey Rebellion; a War of 1812?; Mexico; and, horror of horrors, a civil war-three-quarters of a million dead. Financial crises alternated with war, and no one seemed to notice the pattern. World War I; the Great Depression; World War II and the atomic bomb; Korea; Vietnam. And towering above it all, power politics: a state growing larger, more demanding every year, swallowing lives, fortunes, destroying sacred honor, screaming in its bloatedness for more, capable of any deed—no matter how corrupt and repulsive, swollen, crazed—staggering toward extinction.

     Smith wrote that more than forty years ago. If it were penned today, it would include much, much more.

     Before you go off thinking, “the crazy bastard is off on another ‘freedom-uber-alles’ rant,” remember that this is Part 2 of a tirade about reality itself.

***

     The State and its horrors exist for a reason – and it’s not the threadbare “necessary evil” justification some of you expect. It exists because of human free will.

     Free will is essential to what theorists call moral agency: that condition in which a sentient creature can rightly be held responsible for what he does. It’s easily captured with a few simple questions:

  1. Was he aware and in control of himself?
  2. Were his actions free and uncoerced?
  3. Was he aware of what the consequences would be?

     If all three answers are yes, the person under discussion is a moral agent, and therefore can be held responsible and fully liable for what he’s done. There are gradations – lack of awareness of the consequences of one’s deed can spare him a charge of murder yet leave him liable for manslaughter – but the mental state itself is the thing of interest here. We assume a priori that anyone we encounter in daily life is a moral agent until he’s proved otherwise. The inverse also holds: we assume that persons who are not moral agents will be either confined or closely supervised, lest they become, in the familiar language, “a danger to themselves or others.”

     This implies that – with the exception of anyone who’s escaped his minders – one who does harm to others is doing so in full awareness of its gravity. That is, he knows what he’s doing and can be called to account for it. But today that conviction flies in the face of the observable facts. There are two cases of importance:

  1. Those who are sufficiently detached from reality to fail the requirement of moral agency;
  2. Those who are sane enough that we must presume they intend the consequences of their actions.

     We don’t normally elevate those in category 1 to public office. (At least, we didn’t until recently.) But those in category 2 make up the overwhelming majority of persons who aspire to power.

***

     The methods of the State are simple: its masters get what they want by employing fear and greed. These two assets are the whole of the State’s arsenal. Quoth Lysander Spooner:

     All political power, as it is called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a “government;” because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Cæsar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.

     Interpret soldiers in the above broadly, to include all who are willing to use coercive force against others.

     Just now, we can observe many persons running about, using force against innocent others. Go to any event whose headliner is a generally freedom-oriented figure, or to any publicly announced gathering of persons on the pro-freedom Right. You’ll see them at once: the black-clad thugs of AntiFa and Black Bloc. Note that the “authorities” almost never do anything to restrain them. That’s because they’re de facto soldiers in the service of the Regime. They function to induce fear in those who oppose their masters.

     Many in the Right think this is exclusively a feature of Left-leaning governments. In this country, that’s largely true. But it was a Right-leaning government – that of George W. Bush – that brought us the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Both Left and Right administrations have collaborated in the militarizing of state and local police departments. Were it to prove useful to a new “conservative” administration to employ deniable bullies, I have no doubt that it would do so.

***

     The State cannot make or build. It must purchase what it needs. Its purchases include the allegiance of significant groups: groups that will help it, knowingly or otherwise, to maintain and extend its power.

     There was a minor scandal – really, it should have been much larger – when it was revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was funding groups that use lawfare to “compel” the EPA to enact ever more restrictive rules. What surprised me about the discovery was how many good-hearted persons were astonished by it. It was fully predictable from the dynamic of politics itself.

     That’s a fairly in-your-face example of what I have in mind. Lesser ones are numerous. Every one of them involves a subsidy or a privilege to some group with a shared agenda. The State parcels out favors, often in monetary form, to purchase the good will of such groups. Thereafter, the group’s interest naturally includes maintaining and increasing the value of the subsidy / privilege…and therefore, keeping the favor of the State.

     This is a competitive undertaking. The two large factions seeking control of the State compete to enlist groups of many sorts in their ranks. Whichever faction currently holds the levers of power will naturally feed its allies to keep them in the ranks. That often involves money, but surprisingly often is more about privileges: for example, the privilege of de facto immunity from the law.

     The methods are always fear and greed. The point is always power.

***

     I spoke of “two large factions” seeking control of the State. There will be two such at any given time, for a reason that stems from the political dynamic: When one group has its hands on the levers of power, other groups will face a strong incentive to coalesce under a single roof, to maximize the effectiveness of opposition. But there is a division far more important than that one: the division between those who want power over others and those who want only to be left alone. Quoth Robert A. Heinlein:

     Political tags—such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth—are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

     Along with the ton of sarcasm in that passage, there’s a minor omission: Heinlein fails to call out the people who want to do the controlling. They might not want to be controlled themselves — I’d have a hard time believing otherwise – but they’re definitely all in on the control part, as long as they’re the ones who get to do it.

     The “two large factions” I speak of here constitute the overwhelming majority of the group Heinlein omitted to mention. And I mean what I’m about to say quite sincerely and exactly as the words appear on your monitor:

They are the worst men in the world.

     They’re the very people whom no sane man would give power…yet they’re the ones who have it, and ultimately, we’re the ones who give it to them.

     Nor can we ever, in the very nature of things – there’s that pesky “reality” business again – give it to anyone else. They who seek power will always and everywhere be the ones who get it. And as politics is about the pursuit of power, those who maneuver most forcefully and underhandedly will edge out those who are less ardent.

     I have said it more than once. Others have said it too. Quoth Mahatma Gandhi:

     The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its very existence.

     The swift and certain devolution of the United States, the most hopeful political experiment in human history, is conclusive proof. What more do you need? Fiery letters in the sky?

***

     In the Foreword to Freedom’s Fury, I wrote:

     I shan’t attempt to deceive or misdirect you: I’m horrified by politics and all its fruits. I consider the use of coercive force against innocent men the greatest of all the evils we know. But I try, most sincerely, to be realistic about the world around us. In that world, peopled by men such as ourselves, anarchism—the complete abjuration and avoidance of the State—is unstable. In time, it will always give way to politics. Hammer it to the earth as many times as you may, you will never succeed in killing it permanently. The State will rise again.
     However, as we’ve learned to our sorrow these past few centuries, the State is unstable, too. It always deteriorates and falls, though not always swiftly. What follows it varies from place to place and era to era.

     But what is right – what is just according to “the moral order of the universe” (Clarence Carson) – is not unstable. It remains the same throughout the centuries. It’s possible for anyone to know it and to abide by it. When humans proved painfully slow to get the message, the Creator of the universe sent His Son to tell us unambiguously:

     Now a man came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?”
     He said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
     “Which ones?” he asked.
     Jesus replied, “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false witness, honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself.”
     [Matthew 19: 16-19]

     I shan’t attempt to improve on that.

***

     A fairly long exposition, eh? Well, reality is a big subject. The point may be one of those “we can’t see the forest for the trees” deals, but it remains nevertheless. And it can be summarized in seven little words:

We don’t need governments.
We need Christ.

     And that won’t go away either. Have a nice day.

It Won’t Go Away

     “And what is good, Phædrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?” – Plato, “Phaedrus”

     Among the seminal conceptions in human thought, there’s one that’s been mocked, parodied, railed against, and serially dismissed without ever losing its force. Repeated attempts to drain it of its power have failed to do so to any degree. Great minds have gone to their doom by demanding that it be set aside, usually in defense of one of their theories. It’s also inspired many fantastic tales, some of them actually readable.

     Above I refer to it as a conception, but it’s actually a recognition – one so fundamental that we cannot frame any other idea without deferring to its primacy.

     It’s the recognition that there is an objective reality: one that doesn’t yield to disagreement, alternative conceptions, or pleas that it make room for our preferences.

     Much of what troubles us today flows from the insistence that reality yield to the preferences of some. That, as our British cousins would say, is not on.

     Being a Christian, I view such demands as a rejection of God’s will. But you don’t have to be a theist of any sort to grasp the core of the thing. Whether or not they concede His existence, the screamers are demanding the power of God. What else could it mean to claim the power to reshape reality itself?

     Do you demand the right to use force against others without suffering a forceful response?
     Do you demand the right to consume others’ produce yet produce nothing yourself?
     Do you demand the respect of others despite being of no value to them?
     Do you demand that you be taken for and treated as what you are not?
     You’re part of the problem.

     Reality will not yield to you.

***

     Politics and politicians are a great part of the problem. A great thinker of the Nineteenth Century captured the thing whole:

     Nevertheless, in the inexplicable universal votings and debatings of these Ages, an idea or rather a dumb presumption to the contrary has gone idly abroad, and at this day, over extensive tracts of the world, poor human beings are to be found, whose practical belief it is that if we “vote” this or that, so this or that will thenceforth be…. Practically men have come to imagine that the Laws of this Universe, like the laws of constitutional countries, are decided by voting…. It is an idle fancy. The Laws of this Universe, of which if the Laws of England are not an exact transcript, they should passionately study to become such, are fixed by the everlasting congruity of things, and are not fixable or changeable by voting! – Sir Thomas Carlyle

     In these latter days of the United States, the great majority of politicians attain their perches by promising to violate the laws of the universe – the fabric of reality itself – for the benefit of whoever will vote for them. But who is willing to ask them Herbert Spencer’s question?

     I asked one of the members of Parliament whether a majority of the House could legitimize murder. He said no. I asked him whether it could sanctify robbery. He thought not. But I could not make him see that if murder and robbery are intrinsically wrong, and not to be made right by the decisions of statesmen, then similarly all actions must be either right or wrong, apart from the authority of the law; and that if the right and wrong of the law are not in harmony with this intrinsic right and wrong, the law itself is criminal.

     And who among them is willing to answer it?

***

     We have cities in which hundreds are assaulted and killed every month, often for the color of their skin. We have cities where defending oneself against a violent assault is grounds for a charge of murder or attempted murder. We have cities in which shoplifting is treated as legal and tolerable. We have cities in which a large fraction of the residents live in tents pitched on public grounds and sidewalks. We have cities whose sidewalks are essentially un-navigable because of the copious deposits of garbage, including human feces.

     We have states overrun by illegal aliens. We have states where sheriffs’ departments allow squatters to remain on private property, despite the pleas of the owners. We have states that fund housing for aliens and layabouts while defunding the police. We have states that seek to seize private property and give it to aliens and layabouts. We have states where the law disarms the law-abiding, despite an accelerating crime rate.

     We have a Supreme Court Justice who claims she doesn’t know what a woman is. We have a high-ranking Cabinet official whose responsibilities include the protection of women’s rights, but who refuses to answer the question “What is a woman?” We have thousands of citizens who refuse to allow events such as Matt Walsh’s documentary What is a Woman? without disruption. Others demand that, for the offense of saying that “male and female created He them,” the Bible be outlawed as hate speech.

     These are some of the cases in which some demand that reality be set aside – nay, be denied entirely – to make room for their preferences. A great many politicians defend those demands and applaud those who make them. Some of those politicians are straining to impose that anti-reality on the rest of us. But voting that it be so, even under penalty of the law, will not make it so.

     God is not mocked.

***

     Reality — Das Ding an Sich — is what it is. Attempts to set it aside always fail. Behaving as if reality is just someone’s opinion (a.k.a. social constructivism) always ends in heartbreak or worse. America and Americans will not be exempt. Reality will have the last word.

     It won’t go away.

Scott Adams Is Looking Pretty Damned Accurate

     It can’t be fixed. Just get the BLEEP! away:

     On Tuesday, a 26-year-old Home Depot worker named Blake Mohs was shot dead while attempting to stop a shoplifter in the lawless state of California, just east of San Francisco.
     The suspects, 32-year-old Benicia Knapps and 31-year-old David Guillory, attempted to steal a phone charger from a Home Depot in Pleasanton, California. Knapps is a licensed security guard with a criminal history.
     The couple appears to be dating, according to their Facebook profiles.
     Mohs was working in the loss prevention center when he attempted to stop the in-store theft.
     After noticing the attempted theft, Mohs confronted Knapps, who was “determined to exit without paying,” according to Pleasanton police Lt. Erik Silacci.
     Knapps pulled out a handgun and fired at the Home Depot employee.
     The suspect then fled with her two-year-old child, who was waiting in the car during the theft attempt.
     Mohs was found bleeding inside the Home Depot and was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he died from his injuries.

     Blake Mohs and his fiancée:

     Benicia Knapp and her…significant other:

     Your Curmudgeon reports; you decide.

Load more