Deliberate destruction.

Food production and the fossil fuel industries are not the only ones on the globalists’ chopping block. Last weekend I was invited to a zoom call with the German firebrand “MEP Christine Anderson.”
who gave us a brief report about the recent vote in the EU parliament to extend the Covid pass requirement for another year. The parliament voted in favor of the extension in plenary session in spite of the fact that the measure is wholly useless and unjustified – to say nothing of the fact that 99% of Europeans are opposed to it. Mrs. Anderson’s explicit assessment on the matter was that EU’s democracy is a sham and a fraud. The plenary never debated the measure – they simply took the vote. Why the majority of MEPs voted in favor is entirely a mystery, and a sinister one at that.

But perhaps the most interesting and unexpected part of the 3 hour long call was about the airline industry. Three of the participants on the call had deep inside knowledge of the airline industry (one of them a pilot) who said in no uncertain terms that the industry is now being systematically and deliberately demolished. Apparently, the ultimate purpose is to kill airline travel altogether.[1]

I’m not going to hide behind a demure “what the hell is going on?” post. I know what’s going on. The deliberate attempt to destroy the West is as plain as the nose on my face. And we’re talking Mt. Rushmore here.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan might be explained by rank incompetence. That said I can imagine what would have happened to me as an Army lieutenant if I had screwed up something as simple as a movement, not under fire, from A to B with 10 deuce and a halfs, a map, a radio, and 12 months to plan it out. I still don’t know who was “it” for conducting that particular Afghan tea party but he seems to have skated on over to his new assignment with no apparent damage done to his career.

So, maybe a screw up that was not punished for domestic political reasons. And that’s a big “maybe.” A general officer always has a hard-headed command sergeant major and a vigorous, competent operations officer to advise him about, in this case, truly massive movements of men and materiel. The task of cutting our losses and getting out of Dodge would have been uppermost in his and their practical minds and questions would have been asked of the commander seeking information about the broad outline of “The Plan.” More likely we saw something deliberately screwed up. I have too much respect of military training, procedures, and leadership principles to believe that the exact nature of the predictable disastrous withdrawal was not communicated by the commander up the chain . . . and ignored. Bidenism over West Point. Guaranteed.

This was a rather unfortunate sideshow to the overall all-units, all-jurisdictions, all-hands Klown Kavalcade now hoving into view these last few decades. And that Kavalcade beggars the imagination. I need not repeat my usual list of economic, social, monetary, spending, welfare, immigration, cultural, trade, educational, and diplomatic land mines, booby traps, and idiocies. Every decision in every area and every zip code, without fail, is the wrong one. As with the Afghanistan skeedaddle, it’s simply not possible for smart people to screw up with such regularity and all across the board if “git ‘er done” were the first principle and not some bizarre, sinister political agenda.

Sure. Janet Yellen thought that inflation is “transitory.”

So recall from your recent memory the astonishing way in which the Western world acted when faced with the recent “pandemic.” Was there ever a more authoritarian, destructive, anti-science, manufactured hysteria? The simple concept of risk-benefit analysis was completely abandoned and decisions that affected the lives and livelihoods of millions were taken as though a .2% mortality rate signaled the return of the Black Death. Clearly beneficial alternative treatments were anathematized and the clearly astonishing side effects of the “vaccines” were hidden, downplayed, or disguised. Dangerous drugs became part of the approved protocols and perverse . . . no, evil incentives were offered to all hospitals to misidentify Covid-19 as the culprit. Career ruin awaited experts who questioned the salvific “vaccines” now well known to be virtually useless and, arguably, extremely damaging. Ivermectin was characterized as something in the “eye of newt” category.

Now think of the Biden assault on fossil fuel exploration and production, the equally-dishonest climate change lie factory, the slobbering over electric vehicles, tiny houses, “alternative” enegy, hideous chemical and surgical mutilation of young, confused people, and the vicious attacks on white people, white culture, and the foundations of our country. Then think of the pointless, baseless, manufactured hostility to Russia and our insane efforts to bring down its government and destroy its economy, all with serious damage to ourselves. Then think of the rash of fires at American food production plants. Then of the bizarre, officially-sanctioned looting, arson, and murder of the summer of 2020. Random somethings? Or agenda-driven?

The author of the above passage sees something sinister in the EU lock-step extension of the Covid pass requirement. It’s not that hard to figure out. The founding of the EU was premised on the lie that “nationalism” rather than totalitarian government (informed by the monstrous lies of socialism) had been the cause of Europe’s woes in the first half of the century and that “globalism” was the righteous path for all to take in the future. The EU had to tread carefully at first but it can now be more overt in pursuing its authoritarian agenda that no European citizen signed onto. It started on a corrupt basis and now we see the result. Economic and cultural madness is the Order of the Day. The crazed importation of hate-filled, arrogant, unassimilable Muslims and other third-world primitives is just the lagniappe. I mean, really freaking unassimalable. Consider, while you’re at it, the loathsome E.U. member Frans Timmermans and his multicultural bullshit.[2]

You may already know my mantra: If you hated America (or your own Western country) and wanted to destroy it, what would you do differently from what is being done now by your own leaders? What about all our national governments is decent, kind, rational, patriotic, or constructive?

Notes
[1] “A small short? The coming collapse of the air travel industry.” By Akrainer, ZeroHedge, 7/2/22 (emphasis added).
[2] Ask yourself who decided that the future he adores is the only path? Why is wanting to have one’s own culture and nation such a corrupt, antiquated desire in his view?

Intentions Over Achievements

     Many a commentator has noted the Left’s preference for hawking its intentions for a proposed bill, and completely ignoring (or fan-dancing away) the consequences of the bill once it’s been signed into law. Thomas Sowell cites a number of instances of this behavior in The Vision of the Anointed, which I recommend heartily to anyone who has yet to read it.

     But wait: there’s more! What if the intentions the Left professes aren’t the ones they really harbor? What if their actual intentions differ radically from the ones they claim? What if they’re malevolent? It’s plain that they wouldn’t admit to such motives right out in front of God and everybody…even though now and then they actually do.

     The suspicion is growing – and with good reason.

     We’ve heard the Ventriloquist-Dummy-in-Chief prevaricate, obfuscate, wave evidence aside, and blame others frequently enough to be certain that something other than the well-being of the American people tops his priorities. The same goes for all of his Cabinet secretaries and deputy secretaries, and for all the more vociferous Democrats on Capitol Hill. Blue-state governors and mayors are no better at “facing the music.” It recalls to mind a piercing passage from Atlas Shrugged:

     “At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination—when five minutes of thought should have told them what would happen if somebody tried to practice what they preached. Now I know that they didn’t do it by any kind of mistake. Mistakes of this size are never made innocently. If men fall for some vicious piece of insanity, when they have no way to make it work and no possible reason to explain their choice—it’s because they have a reason that they do not wish to tell.”

     Indeed.

***

     There are three categories of non- or anti-public-spirited motivation to be found among members of the political Establishment:

  1. Favoritism toward particular interests or clients;
  2. Hatred of the private citizens of the country;
  3. Delight in the exercise of power.

     The first of these is a version of the profit motive. While it’s natural and acceptable in commerce, it’s not supposed to animate holders of public offices in the performance of their duties. The second, an omnidirectional malevolence, is difficult for any decent person to understand. Yet we’ve seen it in operation in other countries, which forces us to ask why it should be impossible here. I have no doubt that some, at least, of America’s political Establishment are motivated by considerations in one or the other box.

     The third is the one most difficult to grapple with. It points to a classical problem with awarding power to some to exercise over others: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

     The great irony here is that we’ve already been told that this is the primary motivation of all power-seekers:

     ’The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.’ O’Brien paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ’How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
     Winston thought. ’By making him suffer,’ he said.
     ’Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.’

     Indeed once again.

***

     We speak of them as “public servants,” but the reality is almost diametrically the opposite. (“If there’s anything a public servant hates to do, it’s something for the public.” – Kin Hubbard) They seek power because power is what they value most. When we’re unwise enough to give them power, they exercise it to the fullest extent we permit – and in these latter days of the Republic, we permit them to get away with virtually anything.

     We’ve tried, at odd intervals, to rein them in. We’ve failed at almost every turn. Constitutionalism, the concept intended to limit a government to its delegated responsibilities, was predicated on the premise that We the People would be the restraining force: first through elections; secondarily through nullification and civil disobedience; third and last through armed revolt. And in each case we’ve failed our responsibilities. We relied upon words on paper, and refused to heed Herbert Spencer’s prescient warning: “Paper constitutions raise smiles on the faces of those who have observed their results.”

     I keep telling people: Reason backward: from tactics to strategy to objectives to motives. Do not believe the pious proclamations about “the public good.” Few have listened. None of us have acted as we should. And now they can have their way with us.

     And they do not mean well.

Fight Fiercely, Like Harvard…But Lose!

     Concerning the never to be adequately damned betrayal of conservatism by the pseudo-conservative NeverTrumpers, a.k.a. “Conservatism, Inc,” Ace captures the core of their mindset:

     They live in very leftwing Blue Cities in which ultraleft governance is the norm, in which ultraleft social norms are the norm, in which ultraleft political imperatives are the norm.

     They are used to very leftwing government and have no visceral objection to it. They see it as merely a cost to pay for having easy access to the the-a-tre and tastefully ethnic restaurants.

     On the other hand: they absolutely fear and despise conservatives, and would never agree to live in conservative-dominated regions.

     They have remained “on the right” under one condition: The condition in which they control the actual conservatives and keep them out of actual power and keep conservatives from achieving the conservative priorities conservatives seek.

     It could not be put better or more succinctly.

     The uber-label that matters more than any of the pretend labels is Establishment. “We’re people who count, unlike you unwashed types who cling to your guns, religion, and so forth.”

     Their organizations and think tanks are failing. So are their fundraising cruises and publications. They’re personae non gratae at gatherings of genuine conservatives. They curl their lips at the fighters, the Ron DeSantises, the Lauren Boeberts, and the Marjorie Taylor Greenes. And they’ve had to go hat in hand to Leftist plutocrats for support – and isn’t the willingness of those plutocrats to prop them up rather revealing?

     The point here, though, isn’t just to tell you what you probably already know. It’s this:

     We should be ashamed of ever having supported them. We should have known to watch what they do rather than what they say. For what did they do, other than fight for talk-show billets and appeal piteously to us for funds, over and over, for decades?

     They were always a tamed and leashed pseudo-opposition, lapdogs that barked only on command by their masters. The signs were always there, but we wished them away. The fault for having allowed them to posture as leaders is ours.

Astonishment ensues.

Astonishment among the clueless, vicious, arrogant bastards at the U.S. Department of State, that is. If only we had had some warning. Some inkling of trouble. Some premonition. [Shrug emoji.]

I could point out that in all of Putin’s public statements during the months preceding the special operation, there is not the slightest evidence that he was going to seize Ukraine and make it part of Russia, not to mention attacking other countries in Eastern Europe. Other Russian leaders, including the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador to Washington, also stressed the key role of NATO expansion in the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it succinctly at a press conference on January 14, 2022, when he said: “The key to everything is to guarantee that NATO will not expand to the east.”

Nevertheless, attempts by Lavrov and Putin to force the United States and its allies to abandon attempts to turn Ukraine into a stronghold of the West on the border with Russia have completely failed. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken responded to Russia’s demands in mid-December by simply saying, “No change. There will be no changes.” Then Putin launched a special operation in Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from NATO.[1]

U.S. theft of Syrian oil and pointless, aggressive war on Syrian nation temporarily on hold.

US troops absent on southern border as of the official lunar noon hour we note. Mention of the magic word “asylum” has turned official bowels to water and vaporized quaint notions of national preservation. But Ukraine now . . . there’s a righteous national endeavor.

Notes
[1] “History Will Judge the United States and Its Allies.” By John J. Mearsheimer, South Front, 7/2/22 (emphasis added).

The Dollars-and-Cents Of Abortion

     First, snippets from two excellent novels:

     “The women’s rights movement had three goals. First, it got women into the workplace where their labor could be taxed….So, with more women entering the workforce the supply of labor increases and wages are depressed….

     “Now couples need to have two careers to support a typical modern lifestyle. We can’t tax the labor in a home-cooked meal. We can tax the labor in takeout food, or the higher cost of a microwave dinner. The economic potential of both halves of the adult population now largely flows into the government where it can serve noble ends instead of petty private interests….

     “The second reason is to get children out of the potentially antisocial environment of the home and into educational settings where we can be sure they’ll get the right values and learn the right lessons to be happy and productive members of society. Working mothers need to send their children to daycare and after-school care where we can be sure they get exposed to the right lessons, or at least not to bad ideas….

     “They are going to assign homework to their students: enough homework to guarantee that even elementary school students are spending all their spare time doing homework. Their poor parents, eager to see that Junior stays up with the rest of the class, will be spending all their time helping their kids get incrementally more proficient on the tests we have designed. They’ll be too busy doing homework to pick up on any antisocial messages at home….

     “Children will be too busy to learn independence at home, too busy to do chores, to learn how to take care of themselves, to be responsible for their own cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Their parents will have to cater to their little darlings’ every need, and their little darlings will be utterly dependent on their parents. When the kids grow up, they will be used to having someone else take care of them. They will shift that spirit of dependence from their parents to their university professors, and ultimately to their government. The next generation will be psychologically prepared to accept a government that would be intrusive even by today’s relaxed standards – a government that will tell them exactly how to behave and what to think. Not a Big Brother government, but a Mommy-State….

     “Eventually, we may even outlaw homeschooling as antisocial, like our more progressive cousins in Germany already do. Everyone must know their place in society and work together for social good, not private profit….

     “The Earth can’t accommodate many more people at a reasonable standard of living. We’re running out of resources. We have to manage and control our population. That’s the real motive behind the women’s movement. Once a women’s studies program convinces a gal she’s a victim of patriarchal oppression, how likely is it she’s going to overcome her indoctrination to be able to bond long enough with a guy to have a big family? If she does get careless with a guy, she’ll probably just have an abortion….

     “All those Career-Oriented Gals are too busy seeking social approval and status at the office to be out starting families and raising kids. They’re encouraged to have fun, be free spirits., and experiment with any man who catches their fancy….And by the time all those COGs are in their thirties and ready to try to settle down and have kids, they’re past their prime. Their fertility peaks in their twenties. It’s all downhill from there….

     “In another generation, we’ll have implemented our own version of China’s One-Child-Per-Couple policy without the nasty forced abortions and other hard repressive policies which people hate. What’s more, there’ll be fewer couples because so many young people will just be hedonistically screwing each other instead of settling down and making families. Makes me wish I were young again, like you, to take full advantage of it. The net effect is we’ll enter the great contraction and begin shrinking our population to more controllable levels….

     “It’s profoundly ironic. A strong, independent woman is now one who meekly obeys the media’s and society’s clamor to be a career girl and sleep around with whatever stud catches her fancy or with other girls for that matter. A woman with the courage to defy that social pressure and devote herself from a young age to building a home and raising a family is an aberration, a weirdo, a traitor to her sex. There aren’t many women with the balls to stand up against that kind of social pressure. It’s not in their nature.”

     [Hans G. Schantz, The Hidden Truth ]

     They talked to a woman from New York City. While still young, she had thrown herself wholesale into the corporate world. “One moment I was just graduating from law school,” she said. “I looked down at my desk, blinked, looked up, and suddenly I was an old woman with nothing in the world but money and work.” She had had brothers who were dearer to her than life itself, but had lost contact with them after college and somehow never managed to reestablish it.

     [From The Sledgehammer Concerto ]

     If that hasn’t yet tired you out, read on. There are further connections ahead.

***

     On Wednesday evening’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, the eponymous host provided his viewers with a connection between corporate American personnel policy and the rise of abortion among American women these past five decades:

     Corporate America wants you childless and this is a big change. A 100 years ago, big companies built housing for the families of their employees and then schools and libraries to educate them. It was the humane thing to do, but it also seemed to make good business sense at the time. If you wanted workers you could count on, you had to take care of them and their offspring, but over time, that arrangement got expensive.

     Employees with families demanded higher wages to support their children, and in many cases, they formed unions to get those raises. So, labor costs soared. So corporate America, in response to this, developed a new model: hire single women. At many big companies, including in the traditionally male banking sector, young women now make up the majority of new employees and you can see why they do. They work hard, they’re reliable. They tend to be loyal to the companies they work for. The one downside to hiring young women is they can get pregnant.

     If you’re running the H.R. department at Citibank, that is the last thing you want. Children make your health care plan more expensive. Worse than that, they tend to compete with an employee’s attention. Responding to after work emails seems less pressing to most new moms than putting their own kids to bed.

     That’s a huge problem for big companies, so they have every incentive to prevent their workers from having children. You can’t say that out loud, of course. It would it be too obvious. Give us the best years of your life and in exchange we’ll pay you what’s effectively a subsistence wage in whatever overpriced urban hellscape we’re based in and then take from you the one thing that might give your existence meaning and joy in middle age, which is having children. That’s the deal we’re offering. That is the deal they’re offering, but they can’t say that. It would sound like what it is, which is exploitation, no better than what the cotton mills once did to 14-year-old girls.

     So, instead of saying that, which is the truth, corporate America uses the language of the social movement it created, feminism, to spin the entire arrangement as some sort of progressive liberation movement. “Fight the patriarchy. Have an abortion. It’s got nothing to do with lowering our labor costs, we promise.” But of course, it does have everything to do with lowering their labor costs. Across the country they are making that case: abortion as liberation. Many of the biggest American companies are now paying female employees to have abortions, to end their pregnancies.

     Compare Carlson’s insight with the fictional snippets and draw your own conclusions. Mine can wait a few minutes while you do so.

***

     It strikes me as unlikely that the corporate model Tucker Carlson delineates above was any part of the original driving force for Roe v. Wade. However, a combination of three factors:

  1. The destigmatization of premarital and extramarital sex;
  2. The massive inflation of the Seventies;
  3. The concomitant huge increases in taxation at all levels;

     …gave rise to a state of affairs in which a great many more women needed to work for wages than was previously the case, while they were simultaneously being encouraged to emulate irresponsible young men in their sexual behavior. (The “encouragements” included the removal of the disincentives to sex outside of marriage.) A new model for American womanhood emerged, in which young women were drawn by present-moment needs and satisfactions to put working for wages ahead of marriage and motherhood. This change in incentives and disincentives, combined with the percentage of women who gave inadequate thought to contraception, made a surge in “unwanted pregnancies” inevitable.

     Simultaneously, corporate America took notice of the greater focus on work and dedication to it exhibited by unmarried and childless workers. The nature of corporate existence plainly favors such workers over people with children, to say nothing of the ever-expanding legal mandates for maternity care and maternity leave. Human resources departments and corporate treasurers’ offices smiled upon this new approach to getting more out of the workforce for the same (or less) money.

     It doesn’t matter that Andrew Carnegie, George Pullman, and Thomas Watson Sr. would spin in their graves over this shift in corporate attitudes and policies. The bottom line is the only thing that counts in corporate reckoning. Responsibility to the shareholders and creditors demands it. And so a fourth force was added to the enumerated three. This one operates to keep young, sexually active women childless, if necessary through the mechanism of abortion.

***

     No one can reasonably be sure of the sequence of events and the changes in attitudes they evoked. What we can know with certainty is “how it all fits together.” At this time, there are powerful forces militating toward childlessness in America, and relatively weak ones – some might even be called vestigial – encouraging the bearing and rearing of children.

     As I’ve written here and elsewhere, it’s exceedingly difficult to persuade people to reproduce against the incentives and disincentives. The present-moment needs can seem overwhelming; the present-moment satisfactions from high incomes and footloose sex are undeniable. The joys of parenthood and family? Security in old age? The future of the human race? These seem rather insubstantial when there are bills to pay, an ever-rising tax burden, and one really needs a new car.

     Note that all the influences I enumerated that urge young Americans toward childlessness have accelerated and intensified these past three years. Note also that the principal driver has been insane if not utterly malicious federal policy. And ask yourself where American business will find its workers and purchasers for its products should current trends continue. It’s a question that seldom occurs to HR functionaries.

First California, Now New York

     Remember what I said about the “may issue” states and their opposition to the right to keep and bear arms?

     Administrative processes can be made so painful and expensive that they deter effectively everyone from exercising their rights.

     California is tightening the screws one way:

     “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.”

     New York will do it another way:

     New York’s Democratic leaders aim to preserve as many restrictions as possible on carrying a handgun in public after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key portions of the state’s gun-licensing law.

     State and New York City officials are zeroing in on specifying “sensitive locations” where concealed weapons could be forbidden, including a concept that would essentially extend those zones to the entire metropolis. Other options under consideration include adding new conditions to get a handgun permit, such as requiring weapons training.

     Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, vowed to call the Democrat-led Legislature back for a special session to pass new rules.

     If “sensitive locations” is interpreted broadly, the term might encompass the whole state. If the required “weapons training” is made sufficiently expensive and exhausting – easily done, as the state could certify a single organization as qualified to perform it, and could mandate that it include an arbitrary list of requirement – it could deter permit seekers from even applying. Neither tactic is beyond the imagination of the anti-gun Left.

     Yet we speak here of a Constitutionally recognized and protected right. What other right is hemmed in in such a fashion? For what other right do we have to satisfy faceless persons about our personal capabilities and qualities?

     Stay tuned!

A Month Of Free Fiction!

(Scroll down for new posts.)

     Smashwords, where I first listed my fiction for sale, is having a Summer Sale that will extend from July 1 through July 31. My novels will be part of it:

The Realm of Essences Series:

  1. Chosen One
  2. On Broken Wings
  3. Shadow of a Sword
  4. Polymath
  5. Statesman

The Spooner Federation Saga:

  1. Which Art In Hope
  2. Freedom’s Scion
  3. Freedom’s Fury

The Futanari Saga:

  1. The Athene Academy Collection
  2. Innocents
  3. Experiences
  4. The Wise and the Mad
  5. In Vino

The Onteora County Romances:

  1. Love in the Time of Cinema
  2. Antiquities
  3. The Discovery Phase

Plus:

All Are Free Downloads Throughout July 2022!

     Every popular eBook format is supported. So if you’ve been silly-dallying about reading the works of the nuttiest fiction writer of our time, grab the opportunity while it’s free!

     Tell your friends! Tell your relatives! Tell your co-workers! Hell, tell your enemies! (How much more could they dislike you, right?) And enjoy!

What Do the Changes in Supreme Court Decisions Mean?

It does NOT mean that they will be “swinging right”. I don’t seriously see the SP Justices dragging their colleagues over to the other side, in the short term or the long term. Most of them have kept their basic philosophy intact through changes in government or changes in the court.

What it MIGHT mean is that, in contrast to the years when the so-called “Swing Vote Judges” cravenly sided with the currently popular crowd, Justices feel freer to vote their conscience. Such as the recent Dobbs and gun decisions.

NEITHER of them are particularly ideological. What Dobbs does is send the decision-making back to the individual states, along with all of the time-consuming and divisive work that the Supreme Court had picked up over the years. By using Dobbs to abdicate their authority, they probably dropped their workload by 1/3.

Same with the gun case – (Corrected to identify the correct decision by Name) Bruen – that sets some firm guidelines about SHALL vs. MAY, as it affects state-issued permits for weapons. Will that flood cities with guns? Unlikely. What it WILL do is give Mr. and Miss/Mrs/Ms/Mx Average Person the ability to cut the red tape, to allow them to have a gun for their own protection. Many are the would-be criminals who will hesitate to attack someone who might be carrying. The Equalization Factor – that a gun evens the playing field for smaller and weaker people against well-muscled thugs – will likely, in time, be appreciated by Asians, Women, and other smaller but law-abiding residents.

So, will the Supremes continue to enrage the Left with their decisions?

Probably, but not because they become even more slanted away from the Left, but because Outrage is what the Left does best.

What does seem likely to follow is that Justices will no longer be bullied by threats to change or modify their decisions. No more twisting, as in the Obamacare decision, to allow the legislation to remain. No more decisions that attempt to please everyone, or, at least, the Left.

And, as is proper, the Court is doing it by returning to the States what is THEIR business. It’s a clear signal that they will be sending cases back to the States, rather than ruling by Judicial Fiat.

Back By Popular Demand?

     The most recent Supreme Court decisions to make the national news have me thinking very rosy thoughts. Possibly they’re completely unrealistic ones, but at least they’re a change from my usual grumblings over “government” in these United States. All three — Bruen, Dobbs, and Kennedy — upset a significant Leftist applecart, which the Court is not known for doing casually. And all three are based on original-intent / original-interpretation Constitutional jurisprudence.

     Could President Trump’s three SCOTUS nominations be the Constitutional lifesaver we in the Right have been waiting for?

     Let that thought tickle you for a moment or two as I struggle to put my thoughts into comprehensible order.

***

     The expansion of federal power that began under Woodrow Wilson and accelerated under FDR was largely founded on two phrases found in the Constitution and one word that isn’t there. Let’s look at each of them in turn.

     The first portentous phrase, which appears in Article I Section 8, is “the general welfare.” The phrase has been interpreted to mean “Congress can do whatever it thinks will make things generally better.” Needless to say, if the Founding Fathers intended Congress to have unbounded authority to legislate on any and every subject imaginable, there would have been no reason to enumerate the seventeen legitimate legislative powers that appear in that Section. But as with most things that are “needless to say,” saying this, over and over at the top of one’s voice, has become imperative in this era of heedless, thoughtless nonsense.

     The second phrase is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This one has been abused so brutally that virtually no one is aware of the Founders’ original intent. “Commerce,” then as now, meant the process by which goods are bought, sold, and transported. It did not and does not embrace all productive activity. Moreover, a reading of the Federalist Papers elucidates the intent behind “regulat[ing] Commerce…among the several States:” preventing the erection of tariff barriers and other impediments to commerce that crosses state lines. That Congress has become the principal impediment to such commerce is an irony lost on far too many.

     The third item, the “word that isn’t there,” belongs in the Tenth Amendment, which currently reads thus:

     The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

     Had the Founders anticipated the greed for power of later politicians, they might have written:

     The powers not explicitly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

     For later Courts would casually accept the notion of “unenumerated powers,” particularly in “emergencies.” (One of those “unenumerated powers,” Congress’s assertion that it can delegate its lawmaking powers to unelected executive-branch bureaucrats, is the subject of West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, which the Court is poised to decide quite soon.) This directly contradicts James Madison’s statement that the powers of the new federal government would be “few and defined:” the rationale under which the state governments were persuaded to ratify the Constitution.

     Quite a lot of agony has come from two phrases and one missing word. But an originalist majority on the Court could salve the wounds rather nicely.

***

     But how likely is it? As I said at the outset, the most recent portents give us cause for hope. However, it must be remembered that no Justice pledges his fidelity quite so much to the Constitution as to the Court itself. It’s a body with immense power, and like most powerful agencies it will tend to act in its own interest when possible.

     The five originalist-leaning Justices on the Court:

  • Clarence Thomas,
  • Samuel Alito,
  • Neil Gorsuch,
  • Brett Kavanaugh,
  • Amy Coney Barrett,

     …can’t help but be aware of the attention on them at this time. A lot of that attention is threatening: the Dishonorable Charles Schumer’s threats; the many calls for the Usurpers to pack the Court; and of course the threats to the lives and families of the Justices themselves. That kind of pressure can bend just about anyone. It has in the past.

     Add to that a phrase that’s being shouted with increasing frequency and stridency: Stare decisis! That phrase, which means “let the decision stand,” has been a Court guideline for many decades. Unfortunately, it’s being invoked against a return to originalism. Originalist reinterpretations of Constitutional constraints would upset a great amount of case law – too frequently called “settled law,” as if no Court had ever overturned a previous Court’s decision. (Dred Scott v. Sanford, anyone? How about Plessy v. Ferguson?) And there is something to say for a “conservative” approach to Court jurisprudence: overturning previous decisions can cause convulsions to ripple through American society as private citizens and companies adjust to the changes wrought.

     Still, if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, to which all other law must conform, stare decisis must be set aside. This is especially important in the application of Constitutional constraints on the federal government. The question of the hour is whether the Originalist Five will have the courage to continue as they’ve begun, especially in addressing cases such as the one mentioned here.

***

     Thanks to the Trump Justices, we in the Right have more hope for a return to Constitutional government than we’ve had at any moment in the century behind us. But hope, as the saying goes, is not a strategy. Neither is the Court protected against the many enemies who seek to bend it to their will. Those two pernicious phrases and that one missing word continue to be thorns in America’s flesh. Extracting them will take more than one Court. Removing the Usurpers from the corridors of power remains imperative. They will not sit idly by should the judicial winds continue to blow toward freedom.

SCOTUS On A Roll?

     Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, whose work I first encountered at Noisy Room, has a blockbuster article at Biz Pac Review:

     It seems overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the biggest decision to come down from the Supreme Court as its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could strip the government and alphabet agencies of their unfettered powers.

     The case asks whether pressing policies that have an impact on the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected bureaucrats or by Congress. The ruling could decide that governing by executive agency fiat is unconstitutional, according to Fox News.

     The case takes direct aim at President Biden’s climate agenda and involves the Clean Power Plan. That plan was put in place under former President Barack Obama in his efforts to combat climate change. If the plan had been implemented it would have cost roughly $33 billion per year and reordered the nation’s power grid. Two coal companies and the state of West Virginia sued the EPA alleging the plan was an abuse of power….

     If the high court decides in West Virginia’s favor, that could throw a wrench into the powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. The power to decide important issues that affect all Americans would be returned to the legislators who are elected. In other words, the power to make such decisions would be returned to the states just as the abortion decision was. Federal agencies would no longer be empowered to write our laws.

     Even Court-watchers might not appreciate the significance of this case. One of the Left’s favored work-arounds, by which it keeps the heat off its elected officials, is having the unelected, largely anonymous bureaucrats of the “alphabet agencies” do its dirty work:

     Democrats have buried the actual costs of abandoning oil and gas in favor of their green agenda. Once consumers see what wind and solar power actually cost, they are likely to balk at the whole inane concept that Biden calls the “Great Transition.”

     Private citizens and private companies are almost completely disarmed by this transfer of properly Congressional powers to persons unknown, who cannot be punished in any way for their arrogations of extra-Constitutional authority. Court battles to redress such excesses are invariably long, expensive, and difficult to force to a definite conclusion.

     Government by bureaucracy is something the Constitution does not embrace. Neither does it permit Congress to delegate its lawmaking powers to other parties. A firm, wide-ranging decision in this case could reverberate throughout the federal government – at long last, in the cause of freedom.

     The late Dr. Clarence Carson, author of The American Tradition, proposed an anti-bureaucracy amendment to the Constitution:

     No one shall be punished for the violation of any federal law except that it shall have been specifically enacted by Congress in all its details.

     Perhaps rather than by such an amendment, we’ll be rescued from the rule of faceless totalitarians by the Supreme Court.

California’s War On Guns Continues

     Looky here:

     California gun owners have been put at risk by the Attorney General’s office after a new dashboard leaked their personal information.

     The California Department of Justice’s 2022 Firearms Dashboard Portal went live on Monday with publicly-accessible files that include identifying information for those who have concealed carry permits. The leaked information includes the person’s full name, race, home address, date of birth, and date their permit was issued. The data also shows the type of permit issued, indicating if the permit holder is a member of law enforcement or a judge.

     The Reload reviewed a copy of the Lost Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

     2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

     Leftists never play by the rules. They will use every imaginable tactic, however low and outside it may be, to get their way – and what they want above all else is to render common citizens defenseless. The Bruen decision hasn’t changed that; it’s merely forced them to dig deeper in the pile of manure they mine for ideas.

     A left-leaning newspaper in New York State tried this, a few years back. The outcry from New York’s law-abiding gun owners very nearly blew their paper away. But the damage had already been done. There have been no reports on the consequences.

     As has been said more than once, why would they want to take our guns so badly, if they weren’t planning to do something we’d shoot them for?

Evidence, Inference, and Faith

     What statement is aimed at you more often than any other?

     For me, it’s “You must be crazy.” or some variation thereof. And more often than not, the stimulus is my religious beliefs. The person casting the aspersions on my sanity deems them “irrational,” the great majority of those who hold them as “stupid and gullible,” and your not-terribly-humble Curmudgeon Emeritus as willingly deluded – insane.

     People differ about what constitutes insanity, and what constitutes persuasive or conclusive evidence thereof. Antitheists have regarded religious convictions, especially Christian religious convictions, as evidence of lunacy for a long time now. It makes them a little nutty to confront a Christian of demonstrably high intelligence and a record of achievement. That a devout Catholic, arguably the most mystically oriented of all Christian denominations, can argue with them calmly makes them froth at the mouth.

     I tried to capture a little of this in a segment of Polymath:

     “Quarter for your thoughts?” Redmond said.
     “Huh? I thought it was ‘penny for your thoughts.’”
     “Time was. I’ve adjusted it for inflation.”
     “Mmph. Okay. Well, I was just wondering about…” His courage failed him.
     Redmond turned a final corner, pulled into the Iversons’ driveway, set the parking brake and turned toward him. “About me and the church, right?”
     Todd blushed and nodded.
     “Because you don’t believe.”
     Another nod.
     “And you’re smart and you know it. But by now you know that I’m at least as smart, and it flummoxes you. Because you just can’t imagine how anyone with half a brain could buy into such a load of total nonsense, much less someone who’s as smart as you.
     Todd remained silent. He fought to keep his expression from revealing his thoughts.
     Redmond smiled gently. “What would you say were the most important words in that little speech, Todd?”
     “Hm?”
     “Would you like me to repeat it?”
     Todd shook his head. “Uh, no, it’s just that…”
     “You’d rather not think about it?”
     Todd’s discomfort deepened further.
     Redmond’s smile turned impish. “Or maybe you’re a wee bit off balance from my having read your mind like a large-print book?”
     Todd started to laugh. He couldn’t help it. In a moment he’d surrendered to a gale of laughter, holding his sides against the spasms from his own guffaws.
     When he’d regained control of himself, he shook his head and caught Redmond’s eyes with his own. The engineer was still smiling gently.
     “Wasn’t it like that for you?” Todd said. “I mean, from everything I’ve heard about you—”
     “From your classmates?”
     Todd nodded. “Sideways, mostly. Some from Rolf and the others in the group. You had to have had the same reaction to…to this stuff that I had. It can’t be true!”

     “Can’t.” Hold onto that word. Scrutinize it. Plumb its implications. Then ask the critical question:

“Why not?”

     Replies fall into the following categories:

  1. “It just can’t,” which speaks of a lack of mental agility;
  2. “Well, nothing like that has happened since then,” which is a claim that singular events, which human power cannot replicate, are therefore impossible;
  3. “It’s irrational,” which is an evaluation similar to #2 above.

     Now things get interesting.

***

     Human power is formidable. Our aggregate capital of knowledge and technology enables us to do many things. Yet we have limits. Moreover, there are reports of events that appear permanently beyond our aspirations. Some of those reports concern the miracles, Passion, and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

     In the physical sciences, a report of something is not considered evidence; the thing must be directly observed to count as data. However, historians take a different approach. They look for contemporaneous reports, eyewitness testimonies, and other sorts of confirmation. Enough of these and the report of an event, however incredible, garners some credence. The Gospels, which are the primary testimonies to the life and works of Christ, have been multiply confirmed by roughly contemporaneous non-Scriptural sources. While those non-Scriptural writers did not witness Jesus’s miracles, nor his Passion and Resurrection, they were able to gather eyewitnesses to some of them, most critically Jesus’s return to life after His Crucifixion. That entitles the Gospel accounts to a degree of credibility.

     Is it possible that the Gospels and the events they relate are mere fantasies? Yes. Is it likely? That’s a personal decision. But the Gospels themselves are evidence. He who accepts them as true and trustworthy is in no worse a position, rationally, than is he who rejects them.

     The implications of the evidence are equally open to dispute. Moreover, some of those implications are rather strong – too strong for many:

  • That Jesus was what He said He was: the Son of God.
  • That therefore He possessed divine authority.
  • That therefore, his preachments are also authoritative.

     To puzzle out and accept the implications of a collection of evidence is to perform an act of rationality. Indeed, it’s the quintessential act of rationality.

***

     Where, in all this, is faith?

     Faith – the willingness to accept a proposition that can neither be falsified nor verified – lies in the acceptance of the evidence as trustworthy. The consequent willingness to accept its implications is merely rational. However, the rational believer must be ready to confront counter-evidence if it should arise. Counter-evidence is evidence in its own right, and must be evaluated on its own merits. Its implications are subject to the same standard.

     The determined antitheist could argue that counter-evidence to the Gospel stories is impossible at this late date. However, historians determined to disprove the Gospel narratives have access to the past on the same basis as do those who accept the Gospels. If there are accounts from the classical era that would tend to dispute the Gospel accounts, they should be subject to the same evidentiary standard as the Gospels themselves. Confirmations should be sought, eyewitness testimonies aggregated, and so forth.

     As a sidelight, consider this statement from the Koran:

     The Messiah, son of Mary, was nothing but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was truthful. They both used to eat food. Look how We make the signs clear to them; then look how they are deluded. (Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:75)

     That assertion was made by Islam’s central figure, the prophet Muhammad. Does it constitute counter-evidence to the divinity of Jesus? Christians, aware that the Koran is filled with dubious assertions (and many exhortations to violence against “unbelievers”) reject it – among other reasons because it was penned six centuries after the events recorded in the Gospels. However, Muslims accept the Koran as the literal Word of Allah; that’s their act of faith. They infer other things from it that are beyond the scope of this rant. But one cannot argue with either group’s premise – i.e., whether the statement is to be accepted as true or rejected as false – for that is a matter of faith.

***

     Rational argument requires that the contenders agree on a set of common premises, especially what constitutes evidence. But the premises of a faith are peculiar to those who hold that faith. This puts the Christian and the disputant in a pickle. They might want to argue, but as they differ on premises – specifically, their attitude toward the evidence – they’re stopped at the starting gate. What’s possible thereafter is only disagreement.

     Much of the disagreement has been disagreeable. It’s unnecessary, unfortunate, and avoidable. But those are subjects for another time.

So, Non-Americans With No Criminal Conviction…

Just HAPPEN to have their cases dropped – those are the cases for crossing the border illegally – just in ltime for them to be registered, and vote (or, have some OTHER person/organization do so for them) in the Congressional elections.

Why, who could be against THAT?

Haters, that’s who.

Culinary Customs

     Kenny “Wirecutter” Lane has a brief tale for us:

     My ex-wife slopped [mayonnaise] on everything. We went through more mayonnaise in a month than I did in a year before I met her.

     About the only thing I’ll use it on is a ham or bologna sandwich, but she’d slather it on everything. I almost exploded when I saw her smearing it on a fucking steak, and in a restaurant no less. It was almost a race to see who’d beat her ass first, me or the waiter. I know he was wondering what she was going to use it on when she asked him for it. Well, he found out.

     Mayonnaise on a steak? The mind reels. (The stomach turns.) What on Earth could she have been thinking? Did she have no ketchup?

Quickie: California Parries The Bruen Decision

     As I was sure it would:

     [T]he [California] AG’s office concludes that the existing statutory requirement “that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of ‘good moral character’ remains constitutional,” and that this requirement isn’t limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG’s office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

     Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the “good moral character” requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include “[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition” or “[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years.” It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant’s proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing “law-abiding citizens”).

     Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s policy, for example, currently provides as follows: “Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction.” [Emphasis added]

     As to how law enforcement is to figure out such matters, the AG’s office has some advice: Among other things,

     As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant’s moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant’s character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant’s character. [Emphasis added.]

     Remember what I said here?

     Finally, we can rest assured that anti-gun states and locales will impose fresh terms on the issuance of gun permits. Those terms could easily be made vague enough to support arbitrary denials. “Good moral character” — ? “No history of mental illness” — ? Meaning what? How long and expensive a court fight would most permit-seekers be willing to undergo in pursuit of their right?

     Watch for it in a “may issue” state near you.

What Self-Imposed Blindness Looks Like

     I can’t help it; I have a scientist’s preference for data over opinions. I have another preference as well: for life, limb, and property. So I respect data about crime. In particular, I respect data about where the majority of crimes against person and property are committed. I avoid those districts to the extent possible – which these days means just about all the time.

     No region on this planet is completely safe, of course, but using “statistical common sense” helps to reduce the risks to life, limb, and property as far as they can be reduced. So I respect the sort of advice John Derbyshire gives in “The Talk – Nonblack version:”

     A small cohort of blacks–in my experience, around five percent–is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks–around half–will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
     Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

  1. Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
  2. Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
  3. If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
  4. Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
  5. If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
  6. Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
  7. Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
  8. Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
  9. If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

     It’s a mini-sermonette about our present-day culture that the great majority of whites who read the above recoil from it in a kind of horror. Yet the great majority of them behave in accordance with Derbyshire’s advice. It’s hard to draw any inference other than the one I drew in this essay:

     The essence of the taboo in American society is linguistic: not to speak the forbidden thought or attitude.

     Any knowledge, however well confirmed, that a white American possesses that illustrates differences among the races as statistical aggregates must never be expressed in words. However, one may make use of the knowledge encapsulated in Derbyshire’s brief essay, as long as it’s never articulated where the shamans can hear.

***

     Here’s something else I can’t help: contempt for those who knowingly lie about what they know full well. Thus, this piece at Chicks On The Right distressed me greatly. I shan’t excerpt it here. Read it and form your own opinions.

     Perhaps “Martin” had an ulterior motive for his query. It doesn’t matter. As a white woman “Mockarena” would know that she’d be in elevated danger were she to blithely disregard Derbyshire’s counsel. She must know it. She probably behaves in accordance with it. But it’s plain from the exchange she presented that she would never, ever say so.

     It’s cowardice and worse than cowardice, for it tacitly promulgates a falsehood. That falsehood could cause young, more impressionable Americans to take serious, unnecessary risks…probably out of a sense that it’s their duty to express “solidarity with the marginalized.” That’s worse than distressing; it’s contemptible.

     It’s one thing to vow, privately or publicly, always to treat individuals on their individual merits. That’s praiseworthy. It’s what’s expected of us as decent persons. But when people act in and as groups, disaggregating the group into individuals and treating with each of them on his merits is flatly impossible. In such circumstances it’s the path of prudence to go with what you know. Thereafter, it’s the path of candor to own up to it – and never, ever to deceive others, whether directly or by implication, about the reasons for one’s decisions and actions.

     America needs more than a return to the rule of law. We need a return to candor and sincerity as well – and no mincing about simply to avoid “hurting their feelings.” It’s high time. Charles Murray will tell you.

Christian Love: A Primer

     Every now and then I get a burr under my saddle, and I have to vent. (“No, really?”) (Shut up, you.) Today is such a day. I hope you’ll indulge me, as the subject matter is critical to the future of Mankind. Yes, the subject is the one in the title of this piece – and if you’re put off by the notion, then stick around because it’s especially important that you get the message.

     There are four categories of love. The classical Greeks had a word for each of them:

  • Eros: erotic, passionate love.
  • Philia: love of comrades. (a.k.a. “Brotherly love.”)
  • Storge: parental and filial love
  • Agape: impersonal love, sometimes inaccurately called love of Mankind.

     Christian love is of the fourth variety: “good will toward men,” as the angels sang over the shepherds of Bethlehem two millennia ago. It’s not a mushy-gooey sort of love. It seldom features in romance novels. And it involves neither the desire to possess, nor the desire to control. It is exactly and only the desire that others be and do well.

     When Christ articulated the Two Great Commandments:

     But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him: Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
     Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

     [Matthew 22:34-40]

     …He made reference to two different kinds of love. Love of God is Storge, the love of a child for his Father. Love of neighbor is Agape, the impersonal love that is a desire for the well-being of others, including a willingness to help out when appropriate. Neither seeks anything from the other except the same kind of love in return.

     How could it be clearer? Yet the number of people who “don’t get it” – some of them maliciously and deliberately – sometimes seem to dwarf the number of those who do. This is particularly a problem among fiction writers, far too many of whom treat Christianity and Christians as some sort of malevolent, sentient plague.

***

     I seldom see fiction writers denigrate or condemn any other religion. Judaism? Just about doesn’t happen. Islam? Too risky, unless your last name is Ringo. Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Wicca, Scientology? Haven’t seen it at all. But Christianity! We must be the spawn of Satan, to judge by how often other writers label the villains of stories and dramas as Christians.

     It’s not right. How recently did Christians go slaughtering in the name of Christ? What was the body count? Who cleaned up afterward? And what parts of the Gospels did we cite to justify our rampage?

     There have been villains who’ve called themselves Christians and who’ve acted in a wholly non-Christian manner – certainly without any trace of love-of-neighbor. But the creed prescribes love and condemns hatred. The Founder of the creed, when hung upon a cross to die in agony, said of his torturers, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And there’s this:

     And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
     Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
     Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee?
     And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

     [Matthew 25:31-40]

     Does that sound as if Christ wants His people to run around murdering, raping, pillaging, and oppressing others?

***

     Yet I keep encountering this notion that Christians are a danger to non-Christians, when in point of fact we’ve sallied forth many times to come to the aid of others who don’t share our faith. On occasion that’s included persons who openly and actively hate us and wish us dead or enslaved. And then there’s the abuse we get from writers and dramatists. To go by what they say about us, you’d think we adore Hitler and Stalin rather than Jesus of Nazareth, the Prince of Peace.

     We are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves. It’s there in black and white. In the many times and places where Christians have been persecuted for being Christians, how many instances of violent resistance have there been? If the number isn’t zero, it’s really BLEEP!ing close to it. Yet the number of our persecutors is legion.

     By now you’re probably asking yourself “Who pissed in Fran’s Cheerios® this morning?” It’s a fiction writer, a man of vast imagination with a large and varied body of work. As much as I’ve enjoyed his stories, I’ve had to grit my teeth over his treatment of Christians and Christianity. While P. S. Power is entitled to his own beliefs and opinions, I would advise him to think seriously about controlling that particular prejudice. Undisguised bigotry can cost a writer a good share of his potential audience. That’s something indie writers, in particular, can ill afford.

Pearls of expression.

These days, this place on the planet that used to be a nation groans under a tribulation of bad ideas, bad choices, bad conduct, bad management, and bad faith. We have not been so ripe for regime change since 1776. A ruling Party of Chaos is doing absolutely everything to disorder our lives and there really is no generous interpretation for its motives. Everything it touches breaks, wilts, withers, splinters, rots, poisons, and infects the body politic, driving it deeper into derangement. It doesn’t even pretend to make sense because that would require making distinctions between what is true and what’s not true.

The Time of Our Time.” By Jim Kunstler, Clusterfuck Nation, 6/27/22 (emphasis added).

The Inconsistencies of Leftist Arguments

And, here is a prime example: AOC is bloviating about the Dobbs decision, saying that it will kill women, and that too many children live in poverty.

Really?

Because maternal deaths have plummeted since the mid-20th century. With prenatal health care, delivery is often safer than abortion for the mother, and certainly safer for the child.

Do SOME few women kill themselves attempting to abort? Sure – as do others kill themselves for other reasons. Much as I would like to, I can’t see that ALL suicides can be prevented. Nor that ALL death by self-administered abortions can be stopped.

As far a children living in poverty, Leftist always bring up the “it costs SO much to raise a child to adulthood” trope. Their numbers never seem to have any realistic relationship to the reality of real people’s lives, and completely ignore the fact that, for subsequent kids, the cost is less, as most of the baby stuff is already in the house, and – other than those cute little dresses – kid’s clothes can be used by the next kid. Or bought at a resale shop.

Funnily, the Left never allow the argument that illegal immigrants generally require subsidies for their kids, thereby reducing the money that might keep American kids from growing up in poverty. Poverty for Americans is hunky-dory for Leftists, as long as it allows them to bring in more Dem voters.

I’ve pretty much given up on expecting Leftists to use logic, reason, or principles.

Distortions And Evasions

     My responsibilities to my Gentle Readers are more extensive than you might imagine. Yes, I’m here to provide analysis and commentary. Yes, I’m here to dissect the statements of others who don’t always express themselves clearly. But alongside those duties, I’m also here to pull the wool off your eyes – to tell you, and anyone else who might wander in, when you’re being deceived, and how and why.

     Deceptions take many forms. The one that most concerns me at the moment is an old bug-bear of mine: the deliberate distortions of words.

     He who deliberately perverts a word, employing it to mean something it has never meant and will never mean, is a deceiver of the first stripe. Such persons are many today. The nostrums they’re selling point in the general direction of death. See this collection of essays for my thoughts on such things to date.

     Sometimes the distortions are relatively easy to penetrate. That’s especially the case with some of the more blatant Death Cult propaganda. Remember this one?

     WASHINGTON — The House voted decisively Thursday for the first ban of an abortion procedure since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that women have a right to end their pregnancies. Strongly supported by President Bush, the bill could be on his desk for signature in days….

     “Don’t ever forget, this is about Roe v. Wade,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision making abortion legal. “It’s about restricting access to safe medical procedures throughout a pregnancy.”

     I added the emphasis in the above. Nita Lowey knew what she was about. Rather than call abortion what it is – killing an unborn human baby – she called it a “safe medical procedure.” I greeted that distortion at The Palace of Reason, when the subject came up there:

     Safe for whom? It’s certainly not safe for the baby.

     But of course, that confronts the pro-abortion advocate with something he dares not deign to acknowledge. He’ll probably call you a sexist for daring to say it.

     It’s better to rap such a person’s teeth with the truth about his intentions, rather than to proffer it to him as gently as I did. Watch how it ought to be done:

     “[E]ven the ancient pagans noticed that Nature imposes nothing on you that Nature doesn’t prepare you to bear. If that is true even of a cat, then is it not more perfectly true of a creature with rational intellect and will—whatever you may believe of Heaven?”
     “Shut up, damn you, shut up!” she hissed.
     “If I am being a little brutal,” said the priest, “then it is to you, not to the baby. The baby, as you say, can’t understand. And you, as you say, are not complaining. Therefore— “
     “Therefore you’re asking me to let her die slowly and— “
     “No! I’m not asking you. As a priest of Christ I am commanding you by the authority of Almighty God not to lay hands on your child, not to offer her life in sacrifice to a false god of expedient mercy. I do not advise you, I adjure and command you in the name of Christ the King. Is that clear?”

     [Walter M. Miller Jr., A Canticle for Leibowitz]

     The power of that passage has remained with me for sixty years. It’s a brilliant illustration of the proper reply to one who seeks to deceive – yea verily, even if the one she seeks to deceive is herself. The riposte needs to be forceful – even brutal. Breaking through a shield of self-deception will always require great force, because the deceiver and the deceived are one and the same.

     Self-deception we must not permit.

***

     Self-deception isn’t confined to the Left. They do a lot of it, true, but we do our share right along with them. A lot of people in the Right are doing it over the very same subject: abortion.

     The overruling of Roe v. Wade was a good and constructive first step. Yet it’s not more than a first step. Too many pro-lifers are treating it as a grand victory rather than a modest entering wedge.

     The Alito opinion merely returns authority over the subject of abortion to the state governments, in keeping with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. In no state in which abortion is currently legal has it been rendered illegal by that opinion. State legislatures must first have their say, and we cannot be certain what they will say until they’ve said it.

     Those states dominated by the Left will probably leave abortion legal. The rulers’ constituents want it that way, and the rulers fear to be turned out of office. Those states in which the Right is dominant will probably outlaw or restrict abortion. The rulers of those states know their constituents equally well. But there are other forces in play, some of them not very nice. They make certitude unwise.

     If we want women not to seek abortions, we must work on the beliefs and attitudes of the women themselves. Abortion in the earliest stages of gestation is easily concealed under another name – “menstrual extraction” is the usual term – so even should abortion as such be outlawed nationwide, abortions that the law can’t touch will still occur. The only way to reduce them in number is to get women to accept the sanctity of human life, including unborn human life.

     Whatever we might wish, this drama has more acts to play out. The Dobbs decision has given us an opportunity, nothing more. We who are pro-life must not evade the necessity of further, certain-to-be grueling work…especially not to ourselves.

Load more