Saturday, August 17, 2019

“I Can’t Hear You!”

     Have you ever tried to tell someone something – something grounded in facts that are easily observed and multiply verified – something he doesn’t want to hear? There’s no non-violent undertaking that frustrates worse. It’s the archetype of thanklessness. Persistence in such an effort can seem a kind of masochism. In the aftermath you’re likely to ask yourself “What was I thinking?”

     Yet there are times when it seems morally obligatory. Times when the unwilling hearer clearly needs the information and is almost guaranteed to come to grief unless he accepts it.

     Consider in this light the election to the presidency of Donald Trump. He was up against a heavily touted opponent whose victory had been proclaimed “inevitable” (including by herself). His predecessor had practically guaranteed that “Donald Trump is not going to be president.” The entirety of the news media mocked him, his proposals, his many rallies, and his chances.

     Then he won – and by a convincing margin.

     Did those who laughed at Trump’s campaign draw any lesson from his victory? Damned few, if any. Mostly they grew angry at having been refuted. Many sought excuses for their predictive failures. Many are still trying to explain it away by some mechanism that would allow them salve for their egos. The failure of the “Russian collusion” farce to hold a drop of water seems to have rendered some of them permanently incoherent.

     New York Times editor-in-chief Dean Baquet recently had a meeting with his staff. In case you’ve spent the last four years in a coma, I will mention here that the Times dislikes President Trump and has for some time pushed the “Russian collusion” nonsense as the explanation for his victory. Apparently Baquet’s staff meeting was for the purpose of resetting his subordinates’ focus: from “Russian collusion” to “racism.” Just a spot of preparation for the 2020 election, don’t y’know.

     Among those left of the political center, not one millisecond goes to consideration of the possibility that Trump defeated Hillary Clinton because the people of these United States preferred him to her in sufficient numbers. No, there simply must be some other explanation.

     Must? Yes, must! Because if there isn’t, we’re all fools! We’ve all been duped! We’re the ones who are out of touch. We’ll be compelled to apologize for being so cocksure – and that mustn’t happen to a true-blue left-liberal!

     There are some diseases of the mind for which professional help is not available. Unwillingness to face facts is one of them.


     The world of journalism is heavily slanted to the left, for reasons beyond the scope of this tirade. Yet there are a few openly conservative mavericks therein. Here’s a piercing statement from one of them:

     Sometimes people ask me how I, as a member of the very liberal newspaper industry, came to be a conservative.

     The answer is that I’ve been around liberals enough to know that we don’t want them running —— well, anything.

     Will Davis, the author of the article, speaks for quite a few Americans, including several of my acquaintance. Extended exposure to liberals’ endless sanctimony and self-justifications can do that to anyone. But more valuable still is Davis’s report of a reply he received after he’d dared to dispute the liberal piety of pervasive “white supremacism:”

     “I imagine it would be easy for you to agree that white supremacy isn’t a problem,” wrote Gottschalk. “You are a white male who included an image of the confederate flag on your senior page. Just last week, my husband, who is black, went to the farmer’s market and was asked by the vendor if he was looking for collard greens, because you know, black people only eat collard greens. Racism is everywhere. You do not see it because you are never the victim of it.”

     “False consciousness” rides again. But whose consciousness is false? That of Will Davis, who grounded his opinion in personal observations accumulated over many years? Or that of Candace Gottschalk, who argued from her interpretation of a single encounter she hadn’t even witnessed?

     Ironically, Davis slides around the most important point:

     Why am I a conservative? Because I know liberals. There is no grace there. No love there. Only hatred and judgment and pettiness.

     The hatred and judgment and pettiness Davis encountered are quite real, but they aren’t fundamental. What’s fundamental is liberals’ unwillingness to accept facts that contradict their already-formed opinions and convictions.


     The deterioration of the national discourse has practically nothing to do with the relative merits of the worldviews and policy positions of Left and Right. If those things really mattered, our arguments would involve evidence and causal reasoning, two things conspicuous by their absence from exchanges between us. Rather, what we in the Right face is a Church of the Left. Its members remain securely inside it lest they be corrupted by sober consideration of observations and convictions not sanctified by their priests.

     Two aspects of this opposition stand out above all others. First is that it renders conventional argument and the tactics thereof largely pointless. There’s no way to argue with someone whose principal motivation is to remain in good standing with his church – and doubt it not: that is what most concerns the great majority of those within the left-liberal “bubble.” The journey toward it might have been motivated by other considerations, but for those within it, what swiftly comes to matter most is the sense of approval and acceptance from one’s priests and fellow congregants. These are not assets the typical worshipper would willingly forsake.

     Second, and far more critical for the long term, consider this oft-repeated quotation from military SF writer Tom Kratman:

     [I]t has been said more than once that you should choose enemies wisely, because you are going to become just, or at least, much like them. The corollary to this is that your enemies are also going to become very like you....

     If I could speak now to our enemies, I would say: Do you kill innocent civilians for shock value? So will we learn to do, in time. Do you torture and murder prisoners? So will we. Are you composed of religious fanatics? Well, since humanistic secularism seems ill-suited to deal with you, don't be surprised if we turn to our churches and temples for the strength to defeat and destroy you. Do you randomly kill our loved ones to send us a message? Don't be surprised, then, when we begin to target your families, specifically, to send the message that our loved ones are not stationery.

     I cannot overemphasize the importance of Kratman’s observation. He has captured the pattern of adversaries locked in lethal combat, as two thousand years’ records can confirm. It applies equally well to political combat.

     The Right must not become a church. We must remain reliant on evidence and reasoning, never on whether some point is about Us versus Them. Yet the pressure to do as the Left has done – to abandon our rational allegiance to our convictions for a pseudo-religious one – is mounting. If we have a chance to resist it successfully, it lies in remaining aware of the danger...and of what it would presage for the resolution of the destiny of these United States of America.

Friday, August 16, 2019

An Announcement: Free Fiction!

     On Saturday, August 24, 2019, my little book The Athene Academy Collection will be free at Amazon:

     Become acquainted with the futanari. Despite being genetically women, they possess male genitals. Athene Academy, the most unusual college on Earth, was created specifically to serve them. The three novelettes in this collection are about their unique trials, and those of the men and women who teach them, work with them, and love them.

     These novelettes are “prequels” to my three novels Innocents, Experiences, and The Wise and the Mad.

Assorted

     I have a heavy schedule for today, so one of the dreaded “Assorted” columns must suffice. Fortunately, I have a fair number of entries in the “Write something about this” folder, so sit back.


1. Contempt.

     Beware the impulse to lash out at others. Sometimes the others lash back. However, even when they don’t, expressions of contempt leveled at persons who “aren’t around to defend themselves” says more and worse about the speaker than about any of his targets.

     The impulse can afflict anyone. When it gets into the soul of a writer who has some reason to believe himself intelligent and erudite, the results can be unfortunate:

     ‘Democracy,’ wrote H.L. Mencken, ‘is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.’ Kevin D. Williamson is a man cut very much from Mencken’s cloth. He has the same caustic humor. He has the same contempt for the mob. He has the same respect for the transcendent individual. In his new book The Smallest Minority, Williamson is at his most Menckenesque.

     This is not to say that Williamson is a mere imitator of the sage of Baltimore. For one thing, it is hard to imagine Mencken opening a book by advising the reader that ‘you can’t fuck with a monkey in Delhi.’ Sound advice. Williamson is not just offering a tip to tourists, though, but comparing India’s shit-flinging monkeys to the denizens of social media.

     This is a funny thing about Williamson’s book: he spends pages talking about the importance of culture and the lamentable philistinism of the masses but trades heavily in swear words and toilet humor.

     Quoth Ace of Spades:

     The reviewer notes the central problem with Kevin D. Williamson: He's a would-be elitist who mocks the non-elites for not being smart like the elites.

     But are the elites smart? Does the dumbtasstic shitweasel Kevin D. Williamson [have] anything beyond average intelligence, superior self-regard, and very superior contempt for everyone else?

     A good question that no one has yet deigned to answer.

     “When one man points a finger at another,” Louis Nizer once said, “It behooves him to remember that his other fingers are pointing back at himself.” Apparently Mr. Williamson has forgotten this...if he ever knew it.


2. NeverTrump as an indicator of impending suicide.

     Well, perhaps not literal suicide. But columnist Max Boot appears to have intellectual and professional suicide in mind:

     Max Boot, who’s notoriety extends to being so continually wrong about foreign policy that he must be actively trying to fail, was the target of a recent National Review article in which he was called out for fanning the flames of racial hatred. You see, Boot in the post Trump era has done what many other “conservatives” have done. Namely, they’ve decided TV appearances and that sweet, sweet cable news cash outweigh any concern for actual conservative policy wins. These are the people who fancy themselves moral betters in the age of Trump despite the fact that their private lives rarely measure up.

     There’s no fair-use way to excerpt this article without doing it violence. Please read it all, follow the embedded links, and contemplate the species of madness that causes a man, driven insane by his dislike of a more successful individual, to claim “A” while condemning “A” with every word he writes. I could almost feel sorry for Boot, but...naah, not really.

     Got to learn how to admit when you’ve been wrong, Boot baby.


3. The Hunt.

     The above-named movie got quite a lot of buzz for a while. If you haven’t read about it, it involved a “Most Dangerous Game” style hunt: specifically, armed liberals hunting Trump supporters kidnapped and turned loose on an island dedicated to such pastimes.

     There was a lot of Sturm und Drang over the movie from the instant news of it reached persons outside Hollywood. The furor caused the producers to withdraw their support from the movie and declare that it would not be released.

     The concept does strike me as obscene. A number of commentators have analogized it to “traditional” horror movies, in which all the victims but one give evidence that they deserved their deaths. Others have insisted that the concept guarantees that the hunted will come off as the good guys. Of course I haven’t seen the movie (and wouldn’t agree to see it if it were released), but the concept itself – one group hunting kidnapped members of another over political differences – is so vile that none of that would matter in the end. The depiction of a murderous hunt predicated on the notion that virtue flows from one’s political posture outweighs all other considerations.

     Whoever took it into his head (and his wallet) to make such a movie has a serious problem. It goes far beyond a mere defect of taste. I hope he finds help, and soon.


4. Good Sense On Mass Shootings.

     I’ve lately come to admire the op-ed writing of fiction writer David L. Burkhead. Among other things, he doesn’t shy back from expressing the conclusions he’s reached. Indeed, he’ll hit you right between the eyes with them and leave you to cope with the implications. Time was, this was called being plainspoken. Today it’s almost vanishingly rare.

     Here’s a good example about a subject in our current discourse:

     “How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

     I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them. “Gun control” certainly cannot. France’s strict gun control did not prevent Charlie Hebdo nor the 2015 Paris attacks. India’s draconian gun laws did not prevent Mumbai. Norway’s gun laws did not stop the spree shooter there. And so on.

     “Ending” is an unachievable target. No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, who intends to harm others–particularly if they’re looking at going out in a blaze of “glory” (with “infamy” serving for their purpose)–will find a way to do it. When you use it as a justification for restrictions on the law abiding there is no end to that. No restrictions will ever be enough. So it will always be an excuse for more restrictions. And if at any point anyone objects, you can do then as you do now and say “Don’t you care about the victims of gun crime?”

     Sorry if you don’t like that, but the truth hurts sometimes.

     Please read it all. It’s worth your time, believe me!


5. Property Acquisition?

     What would the United States federal government do with Greenland?

     Donald Trump has discussed trying to buy Greenland from Denmark as a way to expand US territory, according to US reports that have drawn scorn in Copenhagen and on the Arctic island.

     The US president's proposal, which was first reported in the Wall Street Journal, has come with “varying degrees of seriousness”, though he has apparently gone as far as seeking the view of the White House counsel.

     Mr. Trump discussed the idea at a dinner last year at which he said he had heard Denmark found the financial support to the territory burdensome, the Journal reported.

     Reuters reported two sources familiar with the situation as saying he had privately discussed the idea with aides and advisers, with the notion laughed off by some as a joke but taken more seriously by others.

     Well, we did get a good deal on Alaska, back when, but real estate prices have gone up since then and anyway, what would we do with an enormous, glacier-covered island that’s almost entirely within the Arctic Circle and is mostly too cold even for tourism?

     If you’re going to make a huge purchase of northern land, I say buy Canada. It’s got lots of good stuff, including the Hockey Hall of Fame, the western oil fields and tar sands, and the people are really nice. Well, yeah, except for the Muslims.


     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. My current novel-project deserves more attention than I’ve been giving it. Also, I have a lawn mower to reassemble...and then to use. See you tomorrow, I hope.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Let's End Lucy Republicans

"Lucy" Republicans can be identified by this:
No matter what they say about Leftists, when Push comes to Shove, they willingly support them against their own party.
Every time. 
Reminds me of this:

And, the Republican Party, of course, is Charlie Brown - eternally optimistic about the motivation of their colleagues.

Don't be like Charlie.

Even Lindsey Graham, the quintessential Charlie Brown for too many years, Hit the Wall.



He has largely stayed in his post-Bruce Banner, Hulk persona.

Don't be like Charlie. Be like Lindsey.

To Avert Responsibility, Collectivize!

     To him who hopes to deceive others for profit, the most attractive of all occupations is rhetorical tactician. Perhaps it always was that way. Demosthenes would probably say so; he was, after all, the man who framed rhetoric as the art of making “the worse appear the better cause.” Whatever the case, if your principal skill is lying, there’s no better job for you than rhetorical tactician for a political organization.

     That’s not to say that all politicians and political organizations are equally deceitful. Some tactics aren’t infinitely adaptable. That includes the one I have in mind this morning.

     Let’s start with an example: more exactly, a schematic of one. Imagine that you’ve signed on with some political group as a rhetorical tactician. Such a group will naturally prioritize protecting its members, its agenda, and its funding. At least, if it doesn’t have those things at the top of its priority list, it won’t last very long. But a political group’s focus will be on political action: i.e., on influencing the State, its agencies, and its agents toward support for the group’s agenda. That implies an orientation toward political incentives and governmental responses, usually as instantiated in law and executive policies.

     Now something unfortunate happens for your group: One of its more prominent members is caught doing something naughty. Moreover, the specifics of the naughtiness appear contrary to your group’s overt agenda. You’ve been assigned the task of detoxifying the event rhetorically: i.e., it’s your job to craft rhetoric that will frame what he did as something harmless or irrelevant to the group’s interests. What methods, in categorical terms, are available to you?

     There aren’t many choices. If there were a plausible alternate suspect to whom the deed could be ascribed, that would serve the purpose...but let’s postulate that your guy was caught red-handed. That excludes any possibility of attributing the offense to another individual. What’s left?

     Now now, let’s not always see the same hands!


     Just yesterday there was another mass shooting, this time in Philadelphia. The targets were Philadelphia police officers, six of whom were hit. The shooter eventually surrendered and is now in police custody. Media commentators immediately launched into rants about “white supremacy” having created “a climate of fear.”

     But the shooter is black. It takes some work to find a picture of him being apprehended, but they exist:

     Moreover, the shooter isn’t exactly unknown to the police. So how does this connect to “white supremacy” or “a climate of fear?”

     Yet this is what the Left’s mouthpieces do. They strain to redirect the responsibility for the crime from the individual onto some group, preferably a group hostile to the Left’s interests. They put a special effort into it when the individual is from one of the Left’s “mascot groups” (Thomas Sowell).

     It’s been going on for a long time. Ordinary people have begun to tune it out. Yet it will persist, because categorically speaking there’s no other way for the Left to deal with offenses committed by members of groups allied with them, or which they find politically useful.

     There are several such groups. American blacks. Illegal aliens. Muslims within America’s borders. (I refuse to call them “American Muslims” or “Muslim Americans,” as their creed commands them to deny their allegiance to anything but Islam and its ummah.) The media’s coverage of such persons’ misdeeds is invariably gentle; the political rhetoric wrapped around them is invariably deflective and collective.

     The consequences are coming home to roost.


     Collectivization begets collectivization. When the flacksters’ tactics become consistent enough and uniform enough to be widely recognized as what they are, those who recognize them are moved toward a “counter-collectivization” inimical to the flacksters’ agenda. We’ve already seen that identity groups will evoke counter-groups of other – usually opposed – identities. Groups that attempt to redirect responsibility for their miscreants onto “the police” or “society” have become noxious in the public mind. The reactions are unpleasant; they’re definitely the opposite of what a good person would wish.

     Ironically, the best counteraction to the presence of serious, disproportionate misbehavior within an identifiable demographic, regardless of whether it’s united by race, ethnicity, creed, occupation, or any other characteristic, is the institution of internal discipline. That is, the good people within the group would do best to deal with the criminals, disrupters, antisocials, et cetera internally, such that they can represent to those outside that “we know we have a problem, but we’re dealing with it, so please be patient with us.” For people cannot be prevented from seeing things in groups united by categorizing characteristics. We’re hard-wired to do so, and no amount of “re-education” will prevent it.

     The behavior of early Twentieth Century bootlegging gangs is instructive. Those gangs were often at war with one another. Blood often flowed freely during those contests...but only the blood of gang members. The bosses were scrupulous about not allowing gang-on-gang violence to involve outsiders. Outsiders were their customers; their good will had to be preserved. As for law enforcement, the bosses preferred bribery to the murder of policemen, wherever and whenever possible.

     The paramount need is to prevent government and its agents from taking a collectivist attitude toward the citizenry: regarding us not as individuals responsible solely for our own actions, but as members of groups that bear collective responsibility for whatever any of its members might do. That attitude, when inculcated in the State and its agents, invites preferential enforcement of the law at the very least. It can result in pogroms and “ethnic cleansings.” However, the prevailing political-rhetorical dynamic is in the direction of collectivization, and has been for some time.

     That dynamic must be countered and reversed. It might be inimical to the strategists of the Left – it certainly wouldn’t be good for the career prospects of their mouthpieces – but it’s one of the chief necessities of our time.

     More anon.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Out With the Religion-Lite, In With the Old

A church that had drifted far from Catholicism is brought back. AND, met with parishioner protests - right in the middle of Mass!

I commented on this, adding in some perspective from a recent trip to a Latin Mass - Solemn-High, at that!

Unacceptable By Association

     We tend to judge a man, at least in part, by the company he keeps. The practice goes all the way back to Eden. The Pharisees tried to use it against Jesus, for His willingness to associate with publicans and sinners. It’s not entirely unfair or nonsensical. But it has consequences, and not all of them are good ones.

     Granted, proximity is sometimes illusory. The “six degrees of separation” effect can be used to link persons who know nothing about one another. But an individual’s voluntary associations are and have always been considered an indication of what that individual considers acceptable in others. In the past, this has been exploited by both the Left and the Right. Today it’s a major tactic of the Left in its war on the rights of American citizens.

     The contemporary (i.e., totalitarian) Left uses the practice to its advantage by polluting groups of Right-inclined persons with fakers who openly espouse unacceptable views. Fora hospitable to the Right are their principal targets. Once such a forum opens for business, the Left details trolls to join it and to spout vileness: politicized racial, ethnic, and sexual bigotry, calls for mass murder, “entertainment” of the lowest kinds of porn and violence. Leftist activists then immediately denounce that forum as a place where only the unacceptable would go.

     I’ve witnessed this tactic at several recently-opened "social media" sites dedicated to free expression:

     The pattern has been consistent. The responses to it have not.

     The tactic has an in-the-flesh equivalent that’s becoming more worrisome. Historically, the technique involved inserting “supporters” into a political rally that others would deem unacceptable for their other connections: e.g., “Satanists for Trump.” However, AntiFa, the Democrat Party’s Brownshirts, has been “overheard” talking about infiltrating free-speech demonstrations so that when violence erupts, they can make it look as if the free-speech advocates started it.

     As usual, the tactic is oriented toward persuading unaligned Americans that “you don’t want to be part of that crowd.” And unfortunately, it works.


     Every era – every moment — is “a time of transition.” The “from” and the “to” are often discernible only long afterward. Moreover, whether the change was for good or for ill can remain questionable for decades.

     The November 2016 election indicated that a great many Americans had finally become sufficiently disenchanted with the political elite to rebel against it, at least at the ballot box. Yet we cannot know with certainty whether that disenchantment will endure. The Left is putting forth all its forces in the attempt to make the Trump Administration and its agenda look unacceptable to the unaligned. Indeed, the “Russian collusion” hoax was aimed at no other result. The recent attempt to tie President Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein was a follow-up, albeit a weak and easily refuted one.

     The hot-button issues of the moment are illegal immigration to the United States and the right to keep and bear arms. (Yes, there are other important issues; these are the ones that currently command the greater part of the national discourse.) Look for the Left to use its unacceptable-by-association tactic on both. In the case of the influx of illegal aliens over our southern border, the approach will be to color it as racial and / or ethnic hatred. In the case of the right to keep and bear arms, gun-rights advocates will be juxtaposed with mass murderers and advocates thereof. Ordinary decent Americans who lack firm opinions on those matters will be asked, subtly and sotto voce, whether they’d be happy about enabling the aspirations of such persons.

     We need a counter-tactic that can nullify the effect of those thrusts. At the moment we don’t have one. Thoughts?

Short history of the last 100+ years.

Geez, total fail. CHS dude get a clue man. PROGRESSIVES own this suck and there is nothing conservative [can do] about it. "Neocons" is a misdirection word soft minded people use.

There are ZERO true founding father type constitutional conservatives anywhere in the US FEDGOV. Progressives took over everywhere about 1900 give or take and it's been downhill ever since. They have illegally grown the state in violation of the Constitution into the monster of tyranny we have now.

Founding Fathers America=no standing army on foreign soil, no intervention in other nations affairs, no income tax on citizens. NO alphabet agencies, no pencil neck poindexter government parasites looking over [anyone's] shoulders or telling anyone what they can or can't do.

Progressives broke the law to grow the state in America in violation of the [Constitution].[1]

The Bible speaks of tithing 1/10 of your income. Now some people pay more than 50% of what they earn in taxes and get to watch griters, morons, and their enemies decide on how their taxes should be spent.

Our country today operates on mere vestiges of our old freedoms. Progressives/ultra leftists are just getting warmed up to strip us of the remainder of our essential rights.

Notes
[1] Comment by Grimaldus on "Epstein Is The Deep State Civil War's First High-Profile Casualty." By Charles Hugh Smith, ZeroHedge, 8/12/19.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Topical And Terribly UnFunny

     Presented without comment:

     How certain are you that this isn’t going on in your kids’ schools?

Mis-Remembering the Days of Rage

I lived through these years in the link - I THOUGHT I remembered what happened.
Part of the bargain of civilization is ceding the authority to commit violence to the State. (Has its own problems. Beats the alternative.) Lord knows there are people I’d love to beat the shit out of in the street, but if I don’t get to then neither do you. No, I don’t give a flying fuck who they are; you don’t get to do that.
Lefties say, “Well, that’s Nazis, they only do that to Nazis; Nazis are different, you have to shut that shit down, etc.” Great. Except that Lefties pull the same “shut this shit down!” stuff on mainstream Righties on college campuses, all the while calling them Nazis.
Hell, Lefties said Ted Cruz was a Nazi, Mitt Romney was a Nazi, George W. Bush was a Nazi. I’ve done human rights work that had me working in proximity to the U.S. military, so at a professional meeting a Lefty called me a Nazi.
So if you tell me that I’m a Nazi, and tell me people I respect are Nazis, and tell me you’re in favor of going out and beating up Nazis, guess what? I am suddenly very interested in the physical safety of Nazis.
And I’m Jewish.
I was wrong. I minimized the violence of those days in my mind. And, as the excerpt above shows, the Left isn't particular about labeling average people as The Enemy - then, acting on that label.

Towards the end of that post, comes some very specific cautions that we need to be aware of: the Left is organized - QUITE organized.
The big thing the hard Right is trying to do right now is create organization and infrastructure. They have, historically, sucked at it. The hard Left has great infrastructure. Look at DisruptJ20: they know enough lawyers to have 2 teams dedicated to getting them out of jail! Think any Righty group has gotten around to organizing lawyers on tap like that? Nope.
I originally read the post, and was just going to pass on the link and move on. Then, I realized that too many people would just discount this Remembrance of Leftists Past as partisan raving, and ignore it.

So, I decided to put links to these incidents, linking to the least biased (either way) sources I could find. What I found is below.

Angela Davis, and her role in the Jackson trial and death of the judge, among others. This is from Wikipedia, which sanitized her actions.

From iSteve Blog, a fuller, and more truthful report.

From Days of Rage (review) in The Nation.
According to FBI statistics, the United States experienced more than 2,500 domestic bombings in just 18 months in 1971 and 1972, with virtually no solved crimes and barely any significant prosecutions.
Unbelievable. I knew there were some 'incidents' as many of my friends called them. But, few of them seemed to touch me, living in Cleveland, OH.

Which, when I think about it, is crazy. Cleveland was right in the heart of the Leftist action. There was a thriving chapter of the Black Panthers. The "Days of Rage" that roiled Chicago were planned in Cleveland.

Cleveland's major urban riot - in the Hough neighborhood - was attributed to a combination of resentment of the police, juvenile aimlessness, legitimate grievances, and the skillful nudging of Leftists. The Professional Leftist Excusers scoffed at the very idea of Leftist influences; more cynical observers point out that this downplays their role in the violence.

Were "outside agitators" involved? Almost definitely - the resentment of the college students/dropouts/radicals who'd descended upon Cleveland, eager to stir up trouble, stemmed from class resentment. Unlike many other cities - New York, Boston, etc. - that had experienced actions, Cleveland was, at that time, a largely blue-collar, working-class city. For that reason, the Left was salivating at the idea of locating the epicenter in that location.

Alas, the drive to radicalize the proles was largely a failure. Most young people just wanted to get a decent job - which, at that time, meant the auto industry, steel industry, or other factory work. The few locals attending colleges - Cuyahoga Community College or Cleveland State University, primarily - had little time or inclination for revolution. I experienced the organizing efforts of the Workers' Socialist party and other Leftists, and noted the indifference with which they were received.

Only at Case Western Reserve University were the students affluent enough to find the Leftist message appealing. CWRU became a focal point of the Left activity in Cleveland.

My experience was colored by my personal circumstances - in 1974, I was newly married and enjoying the excitement of living downtown, near the exciting night life. By the end of the year, I would have moved to Pittsburgh, PA. Within 2 years, my husband and I had started our family, and we were coping with the chaos such a change naturally produces. We literally had no time for quixotic quests.

Alert To The Contradictions

     There are several components to any industry, however conceived. It’s normal for outsiders to see that industry as a unitary entity, while insiders are aware of its several, cooperating parts. If we view the advancement of a totalitarian state from that perspective, and work to separate its various subassemblies, we quickly see all the following:

  • The strategic / tactical apparatus: This component designs the totalitarians’ campaign, both in terms of its ultimate objectives and the tactics best suited to advancing toward them.
  • The promotional apparatus: This component uses propaganda to persuade as many people as possible that what the totalitarians seek is “what the people really want.”
  • The counteractive apparatus: This component focuses on identifiable elements among the totalitarians’ opponents and works to impede or defeat their initiatives.

     Those are the pieces easily identified in a fledgling totalitarianism industry. Should such an industry gain some degree of traction, others will become visible:

  • The subornation apparatus: This component works on elected officials to turn them toward the totalitarians’ goals, whether intermediate or ultimate.
  • The anesthetic apparatus: This component operates to ensure the compliance of government functionaries responsible for enforcing compliance with totalitarian enactments, and to reassure elements in the population that might be moved to resist.
  • The suppressive apparatus: This component uses marginally illegal methods to defame and / or suppress political adversaries’ operations.

     Should the totalitarians achieve political dominance, the whole force of the State is turned toward their aims, and the components named above are subsumed into the structure of the government as “official organs.”

     During a totalitarian campaign, logical clashes between the representations of the various components will occasionally appear. Here are a couple of illustrative ones, from our favorite Bookworm:

     And of course, when observers note those contradictions for others’ consideration, the totalitarian response is predictable:

     ...because ultimately, freedom of expression is the totalitarians’ greatest enemy.

     The totalitarians’ tacticians know they cannot conquer the U.S without inducing Americans to fear one another. Their promotional machine has done its level best to inculcate that fear in us. It makes heavy use of atrocities such as the recent ones in Dayton and San Antonio, of course without reference to the individuals who committed them or the influences that drove them. When opposed organizations point out the flaws in their “logic,” their counteractive apparatus springs into action with slanderous defamations and the promotion of falsehoods.

     When the totalitarians achieve some inroads, we begin to see the subornation component exercise its sway over elected officials desirous of remaining in power or increasing it. Government functionaries, as David L. Burkhead observes, rationalize their compliance with “the law” by saying “it’s just my job,” with the implications left unspoken. The suppressors work to disrupt any organization that fights for the maintenance of individuals’ rights, whether by “deplatforming” them or by outright violence and intimidation.

     I don’t have much more to say just now, Gentle Reader. I’m still in a highly frazzled, somewhat fragile state. But it struck me as important to elucidate, schematically, the way in which an anti-freedom movement plans its moves and strives to enact them.

     Remain alert to the contradictions. Make sure others are aware of them, too. It’s part of the “eternal vigilance” thing: your job, as a citizen of these United States.

Monday, August 12, 2019

Moscow International House of Music.

Obvious fact.

I could go on, but I conclude this portion simply by stating an obvious and lamentable fact: every single institution in the United States is either actively malicious toward the American people, or a complete scam—and often both.
"The Tyranny of Myopia." By Darren J. Beattie, American Greatness, 8/11/19.

Day Off

     Dig this: The office of the New York City Medical Examiner announced that it has completed its autopsy on the late Jeffrey Epstein, but that it cannot determine the cause of Epstein’s death without additional information.

     Brain overheating. Fingers and toes spasming. Steam pouring out ears. Back tomorrow, I hope.

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Point Of No Return

     Brace yourself, Gentle Reader. After this, you might decide you’d rather have had another “assorted” column.


     In the aftermath of the discovery of financier Jeffrey Epstein’s dead body in his one-man cell, all of the following have been reported by sources to which at least some attention should be paid:

  • Epstein had told guards some weeks ago – before his previous “suicide attempt” – that he believed someone was trying to kill him.
  • The guards assigned to monitor Epstein were pulled off watch three hours before his body was discovered.
  • Epstein had been taken off suicide watch some time before his body was discovered.
  • Photos of the body taken from the cell reveal discrepancies with Epstein’s body.
  • Cameras that would have observed Epstein’s death “malfunctioned.”
  • There were no prior indications that Epstein would attempt suicide.

     I don’t think all of those assertions can be true, though it’s possible that all of them are false. However, they emanate from inside the very system that was charged with keeping Jeffrey Epstein alive and healthy. So this man, who could testify about the heinous crimes of other rich and prominent men, is dead under circumstances that the most phlegmatic of observers would be compelled to call suspicious.

     And what’s this? The system that’s responsible for investigating this debacle is the very system that allowed (or committed) it. What an incredible surprise! We don’t normally expect the suspect to investigate himself, do we? I mean, unless “the suspect” is the DoJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, or some such, right? Right?

     It is to laugh...hollowly, and with many a tear.


     It is simply not possible for a decent American to retain even a shred of confidence in the institutions of government. All have betrayed their charters. All have scamped the responsibilities We the People delegated to them. All have proved corrupt, their souls for sale to anyone with the ready cash.

     Matters are no better in the private sector. The Fortune 3000 corporations that employ half the working population of this country are all in bed with the government. They control the regulatory sector. They purchase the allegiance of politicians with financial support. It’s the dynamic of giantism, as unstoppable as the rotation of the Earth.

     What’s that you say? We can still toss the rascals out come election time? Please! The Left’s strongest initiative has been to suborn town and county Boards of Election and the Secretary of State offices of the fifty states. There’s hardly an electoral district in the United States that hasn’t been infiltrated and colonized by persons determined to see “their” candidates prevail regardless of the actual balloting. It’s so pervasive – and so widely known – that the majority of registered voters don’t bother to show up for any but Presidential elections.

     What remains is to watch how swiftly “our” news media shift the conversation away from this horror to some “safe” topic. Perhaps “racism” or “gun control.”


     Am I angry? Why yes, I am. However did you guess?

     In any sociopolitical project aimed toward a preconceived end, there’s a “point of no return,” after which the result must be either complete success or devastating failure. There’s no going back to try for some other end. Once past the point of no return, it’s win or die.

     The Left has taken us past that point. We are now in a state in which the only possible outcomes are absolute and unopposable power by an immune, self-selected elite over the rest of us, with provisions to ensure that any subsequent rebellion would be hopeless, or the convulsive overthrow of that elite, including appropriate incarcerations and executions, and a return to the strict observance of individual rights and Constitutional constraints.

     I am not kidding. President Trump can’t do it all himself. It’s time for something more: an upsurge of citizen activism of the genuinely active sort:

  • Removal of corrupt officials from their offices;
  • Defiance and overthrow of unConstitutional laws and regulations;
  • Dismantling of agencies and bureaucracies for which there is no Constitutional authority;
  • Continuous monitoring of every element of the election system to ensure its legitimate operation.

     Don’t say it can’t be done. It’s been done before:

When do we start?
Where and how do we start?
Who are the heirs of Patrick Henry?

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Sex Abuse in NC

Link here. Other states should have these stats easily accessible, as part of Open Records. Kudos to NCFIRE.

Rather surprisingly, Geoffrey Van WASP IV was NOT on the list.

Epstein Arkanicides

Found dead, no details.

A suicide risk, found dead. Let me guess - no witnesses, no cameras. The only thing that would make this more believable is multiple gunshots to the back of the head, with the gun missing.

I realized this was coming, but - dang, it's HURTFUL to be confronted with even MORE evidence that they think we'uns is stupid, and cannot connect the dots.

Sturdy Wisdoms: Qualifiers And Caveats

     Remember what I wrote yesterday about returning this morning with something coherent?

     I lied.


     “Don’t draw to an inside straight,” they say. “Don’t open the bidding with less than 13 points,” they say. “Don’t hoard the Js and Ks hoping for a double-letter or double-word strike,” they say. And it’s good advice...most of the time. But there’s value in being unpredictable, too, or bluffs and fakes wouldn’t be so effective. Draw to an insight straight every once in a while. Open the bidding with a three-point hand every once in a while. It keeps ‘em on their toes.

     Any Dungeons & Dragons veteran will tell you: Chaotic Amorals have more fun!


     Debt is best avoided...most of the time. Debt is an anvil chained to your ankle. It saps your income and limits your choices. It pins you down: to your locale, to your job, to that layabout lounging on the sofa...well, perhaps I should say no more about that. But every now and then, it makes sense to incur a debt despite all those things.

     A buddy of mine recently incurred a debt for a reason new to me. He borrowed to finance his divorce. Inasmuch as his wife had become verbally vicious and occasionally materially destructive toward him, I had to deem it a wise decision. In effect, he exchanged one debt for another, with preference going to the one he knew he would someday discharge.

     What’s that you say? Borrow to afford a Corvette? Get serious. Yeah, I did it, but remember your mother’s favorite question: if all your friends were to jump off a bridge, would you do it too?


     “It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” Words to live by, Gentle Reader...unless what you have to say is disruptive enough to create a dynamic you can exploit. Consider this example:

     Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden forcefully grabbed a young woman's arm on Thursday after she pressed him about how many genders exist and Biden seemed unable to provide an adequate response.

     The incident happened while Biden was campaigning at the "Political Soapbox" at the Iowa State Fair when a girl named Katie, who is a student in the state, approached Biden with questions.

     "How many genders are there?" Katie asked.

     "There are at least three," Biden responded.

     "What are they?" Katie asked.

     Biden becoming visibly angry, responded: "Don't play games with me, kid."

     Sometimes one sharp question, properly timed, will let all the air out of some bloviating gasbag...and who deserves it more than Handsy Joseph “They’re gonna put y’all back in chains” Biden?


     Some years ago I became embroiled in a legal dispute on behalf of my employer. I was asked to assist in finding a lawyer suited to the case. One lawyer I interviewed struck me as too full of himself – yes, lawyers have a tendency in that direction, but there are limits – so I asked him to comment on a piece of legal writing, a motion. Lawyers do a lot of writing...or they claim to do it while leaving it to their paralegals. The consequences can sometimes be funny – and useful.

     The document was short. I’d edited it to omit the names of the lawyer involved and the case in controversy. I gave him a few minutes to familiarize himself with it and then asked what he thought of it. “Their position isn’t well stated. I would have put it completely differently,” he said at once.

     I then handed him the original. It had his name proudly emblazoned across the top. “Really?” I said. “How?”

     Why yes, I am a sneaky bastard. However did you guess?


     I recently had an interesting exchange with long-time reader and friend Pascal. The subject was the distinction between cynicism and skepticism. Many Americans have become completely cynical about the political process and its fruits. (Make of that characterization what you will.) “They’re all thieves” has become almost as common a dismissal as is “I’ll get back to you on that” during a staff meeting. But armor-plated cynicism is seldom as useful, tactically, as skepticism.

     The skeptic isn’t absolutely unpersuasible; he merely insists upon being convinced. You must do more than trumpet your own thinking to sway him. In particular, you must face his questions and answer them satisfactorily. In the process, he’ll discover much about you, including this supremely important item: whether you’re willing to allow that you might be wrong.

     Thomas Sowell, one of the finest minds of our time, has suggested that three questions ought to be put to anyone who proposes a “solution” to some “problem:”

  1. “How do you know?”
  2. “Where’s your evidence?”
  3. “How much will it cost?”

     These are sharp questions that very few nostrum-peddlers and panjandra can answer. They tend to waffle, fudge, emit windy generalities, and (of course) change the subject. But there’s a fourth question I like rather a lot that really puts the screws to them:

“Let’s say I go along with you on this. If it doesn’t work out the way you claim it will, will you restore our rights and refund our money?”

     I think that would make the overwhelming majority of them turn purple and explode, don’t you? Especially when the subject is “gun control.”


     I know, I know: two “assorted” columns back to back is a bit much for the Resident Sage of Liberty’s Torch. Chalk it up to having many other things clogging my thoughts, including a host of as-yet-unresolved water-related problems. But as the proctologist said to his constipated patient, this too shall pass. In the meantime, have a nice day.

Friday, August 9, 2019

Brownian Notions

     Look: even I, the foremost essayist since George Bernard Shaw if not Ecclesiastes, need to kick back now and then. This, plus the books, plus maintaining the Fortress against all enemies foreign and domestic can become too weighty for anyone. At such times, I just let my mind wander. (Yes, I put a tracker on it first; I’m not stupid.) If I’m lucky, I’ll stumble across a few snippets that might prove useful...or at any rate entertaining.

     And you, Gentle Reader, are the beneficiary! (Don’t you feel special?)


     To a sane man, women are a complete mystery.

     I spent a little of yesterday reading about the affair of Mrs. Wallis Simpson and Edward VIII of England. Baffling! The man gave up a crown – the last Imperial crown in the world! – for a twice-divorced cast-off of two other men. She wasn’t a raving beauty. From the records, she was an imperious, demanding, never-satisfied social climber who resented Edward’s need to abdicate. Did she have that legendary left-handed thread, or what?

     But even more baffling is this: She married him. Why? Third time’s the charm? He was completely besotted with her, so there was no possibility of his slipping away. Besides, if they’d remained unmarried, he could have kept his crown. Was she so envious of Alma Mahler Gropius Werfel that she had to do something as pointless as wedding a former king?

     Women make no sense to men. Do they make sense to one another...or to themselves? Or is the whole notion misconceived?


     While we’re on the subject of the fairer sex – and in that phrase is contained one of the supreme ironies of the English language – let’s talk about beauty and fashion.

     Women constantly complain about clothing, fashion, and the “arbitrary standards of beauty.” Yet rare is the woman who doesn’t spend her entire disposable income (and as much of some poor guy’s DI as she can glom) on those things. Yes, even after she’s hooked her fish! And then what: she complains. The cosmetics don’t make her look at all like Angelina Jolie. The pretty clothes don’t flatter her the way they flatter the models in the magazine ads. The bras cut into her shoulders and the underside of her boobs. Wearing a thong is like having someone rub a bandsaw across her anus. And don’t get them started about the shoes. Oy!

     But they continue to torment themselves with those things, throughout their lives...and when we ask why, given their complaints, the reply is always the same: “It’s for you, dear.”

     The C.S.O. is no exception. I’d ask her if she’d consider staying at home, permanently naked, as a suitable alternative, but I’m no longer young and fleet of foot.


     Since the publication of The Wise and the Mad, a number of readers have written to ask for more fiction featuring Fountain, the somewhat mysterious futanari character who first appeared in Innocents and who’s acquired more stature as the series has continued. I’m tempted to oblige, but I fear I’ve written myself into a corner with Fountain. She’s too innocent, too good in too many ways...and too powerful. She’s gotten out of my control. Readers of the earlier volumes in the Onteora Canon will recognize the pattern.

     Fountain has begun to approach “Mary Sue” status. There’s only one thing to do with a character that close to perfection. I’ve already done it to one beloved character, and my (female) readers have castigated me for it ever since. (My male readers are mostly relieved that the little bastard is well and truly dead. Especially the married ones.) I don’t think I could bear to do it to a character as sweet and innocent as Fountain.


     And now, a few words about politics and political affiliations for the hard-core addicts in the audience. These thoughts arose from this recent essay of Sarah Hoyt’s.

     We’ve all heard stories about families fractured along political fault lines, such that even the closest of siblings are no longer willing to endure one another. I’m personally acquainted with two persons so afflicted. It’s a painful condition. At this time there’s no cure. The core of this bitter apple is contained in one of Ann Coulter’s pithiest observations:

     Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can’t stand the competition. [From Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right.]

     Though snarky, it contains an enormous insight, the sort of unspeakable truth for which Coulter has justly become famous.

     The left-liberal political creed has assumed the character of a religious faith. In its current state there’s no other way to approach it. It incorporates more internal contradictions and more commands to believe the unbelievable than any other faith except Islam. (Islam is for savages, and while left-liberals may occasionally sadden us, they do shower once a day. Most of them, anyway.) The point is that affiliations based on faith are inherently beyond argument. Thus, anyone who dares to dispute the left-liberal creed is attacking that which is sacred to its holders. We in the Right are would-be destroyers of all that’s holy to them.

     There’s no getting along with someone on the other side of such a political divide. Note the word “political.” Members of differing non-political faiths can coexist if they agree on certain premises, which C. S. Lewis has called the Law of General Benevolence. But politics is about the quest for power over others: power whose foundation is the privilege of dealing death to those who refuse to submit. Left-liberals cannot allow anyone except their own True Believers to wield that power.

     In their underappreciated book The Descent of Anansi, Larry Niven and Steven Barnes include an insightful exchange in which one of the antagonists says to another that religious warriors never admit defeat: they win or they die. That is the Left’s posture. It’s why no setback can convince them to lay down their arms...and it’s why we in the Right, who defend individual freedom, impartial justice under objective law, and America’s national sovereignty cannot allow them to win.


     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. It’s a fine Friday here on Long Island. The lawn needs cutting, the fences need repairs at several points, and the dogs need to be walked. With luck, I’ll be back tomorrow with something coherent. Meanwhile, enjoy your weekend.

YAMSBU - Yet, Another Mass Shooting, Blame Us

It never takes long - often, even before the bodies are declared dead.

"This is ALL Trump's Fault!"

"The GOP need to Shut Their Extremists UP!"

"Gun Control!"

The "experts" start pontificating about their favored solutions - take all guns away, pass MORE laws outlawing violence, add on EXTRA prosecution/civil penalties/H8 crime legislation, etc.

Larry Correia, author of Monster Hunter International (and many other books), has one of the best written answers to the gun-grabbers. No, his words will not persuade the passionately stupid, but little will. It is, however, important for everyone involved in the fight for the 2nd Amendment to familiarize themselves with the basic arguments.

The Dayton Shooter seems to have been a Lefty So, why is that Trump's fault?

The El Paso Shooter was, apparently, an environmental nut/ZPG preacher. Again, not Trump's thing, so why is it HIS fault?

For those eager to eliminate inconvenient Free Speech, I have a Double Salute.


Crude? Yes. But, Heartfelt.

Thursday, August 8, 2019

“Too Much Like Work!”

     Don’t expect the Left or its mascot groups to solve their own problems. They’ve been told – relentlessly, for decades – that their problems aren’t really theirs to solve. No, that responsibility belongs elsewhere...probably to “the government.”

     What’s that you say? If they created the problem – perhaps by letting the garbage pile up until their neighborhoods are unlivable from the filth and the rats – why shouldn’t they be expected to solve it? You’re asking the wrong guy, Gentle Reader. I’m with you! Still, they who dwell in such places simply won’t stir their stumps for their own sake, nor for the sake of their children.

     Whatever the problem, it’s always someone else’s fault, and someone else’s responsibility. That’s the code of the Left.


     Now and then, some well-meaning sort – usually a conservative, politically – picks up the Left’s slack:

     MAGA fan Scott Presler was tired of all the constant bickering in the media about Baltimore's numerous problems, so he personally decided to do something about it. Rather than simply complain or join the online chorus, he has organized a massive trash clean up of the city set to take place in the near future. Presler just wants to help out in any way that he can.

     "I’m so tired of people saying, ‘We should do this, we should do that'....I was just like, ‘I’ve had, it. I’m going to go to Baltimore, even if it’s just me on a street corner picking up trash,'" he told The Epoch Times.

     On Saturday, July 28, the activist told his online following that anybody who wanted to come to help clean up Baltimore was welcome. He encouraged Trump supporters to wear Trump gear but told The Epoch Times that anybody can participate when the event takes place.

     "I just want the citizens of Baltimore to see [that] we do care. We do give a darn. And at the end of the day, we’re all American and if ya’ll are struggling in Baltimore and you guys need help, then we’re going to be there for you," he said.

     Presler isn’t all talk and no action; he followed through. Over 170 volunteers descended on one of the worst districts in West Baltimore, attacked the trash and filth with energy, and cleaned it out. And what followed that effort? Why, this, of course!

     Look, we appreciate anyone who is willing to roll up their sleeves to help Baltimore. More than 170 people came from all over the country and cleaned up nearly 12 tons of trash, according to Mr. Presler’s Twitter feed. He doesn’t post any photos of the totality of the trash, so we’ll have to take his word for it....

     Whatever he says his motives were, Mr. Presler’s presence in Baltimore reinforces the tired image of our failing urban cores. That the poor people in this dilapidated city can’t take care of their own neighborhoods and all the public officials around them have failed as well. The bureaucratic, all-talk Democrats strike again. If a crowd of volunteers could clean up 12 tons of trash in 12 hours, how incompetent and helpless must Baltimoreans be if they can’t manage it in decades, right?...

     The silver lining in all of this is that the residents of West Baltimore did get a much needed cleaning up. That is something that they deserve. Streets and alleyways free of trash go a long way in improving the psyche of a neighborhood and its residents. Not to mention deterring crime. Mr. Presler says that people around the country are planning similar clean up events in their own communities. A loud round of applause for that as well. Spiffier neighborhoods are good for everyone.

     We also hope Mr. Presler keeps his promise to return to Baltimore once a month. It would definitely give his motives more credibility. It might also give him better perspective about the city’s problems than any single visit can provide. Maybe it could even lead him and his followers to advocate for federal housing, health care, transportation, education, criminal justice, civil rights and anti-poverty policies aimed at urban communities.

     In the meantime, we’ll see how clean the neighborhood still is when he returns in September.

     Allow me to say this, right out front: The editors of the Baltimore Sun are villainous scum. They deserve to be stripped naked and flogged through the streets of their own city. Here’s the giveaway, right from their own despicable editorial:

     ...the residents of West Baltimore did get a much needed cleaning up. That is something that they deserve.

     They deserved it? By what right? By what standard? And from whom? Why weren’t those alleys clean in the first place? Who put them into the condition Presler’s volunteers found and remediated? Are these “editors,” who deserve to spend a month sleeping in such an alley, suggesting that all that trash and filth was brought there from afar? Are they suggesting that the precious “residents of West Baltimore” had no part in its creation – or that they had no responsibility to see to its removal?

     We both know better, don’t we, Gentle Reader?


     Kim Du Toit once wrote a visionary article about another benighted place: Let Africa Sink. He understood that savages cannot be civilized by external means – that they must rise into civilization by their own efforts. First World involvement with Africa, however well-meaning, has only deepened its problems by providing its savages with more and better tools of savagery.

     So also with our domestic savages.

     Know the savages by their works, Gentle Reader. Know them by what they produce...and by what they tolerate. Know them by the degeneration of their neighborhoods into crime-ridden, rat-infested middens. Know them by the conduct of their progeny. Know them by their complete spinelessness in the midst of such violence and squalor. Know them by the way they disavow all responsibility for those things. It’s always someone else’s responsibility to put it right.

     But when someone else lends a hand, they denigrate it. They cast aspersions on the charitable one and question his motives. It makes them look bad, you see. It suggests that remediation was always possible – that they could have helped themselves, for the volunteers are persons much like themselves who merely took it upon themselves to act. It implies that they’re the irresponsible savages they appear to be – and they can’t have that.

     The solution to Baltimore, and to comparable zones of savagery in other parts of the nation, is to wash our hands of them. Wall them off! No one should be allowed in or out, lest the savagery prove infectious and propagate to other regions. The residents are willing to tolerate crime and filth, so let them keep it to themselves. An occasional overflight – not too low, Chopper Dan; the natives throw stuff – would be useful for producing instructional videos to show our young’uns about the standards and behavior of savages.

     Quoth Du Toit:

     It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that’s just too damn bad. We have better things to do — sometimes, you just have to say, “Can’t do anything about it.”

     Replace “African continent” with “city of Baltimore.” Repeat as necessary for other savage districts, here and elsewhere. Chill and serve cold.

     Yes, I am perfectly serious.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

What They Want

     I’ve been having more and more days when it’s almost too difficult to write for this site. I’ve forbidden myself to use emotional maladies as an excuse for slacking, which is why my Gentle Readers still get (on average) an essay per day. That having been said, my stress level has been higher than ever lately. I have no reason to think it will recede any time soon.

     My stress arises from politics and the political milieu itself. Much of what’s going on is enough to make my fists clench. It’s an inducement to lashing out. But a Certified Galactic Intellect doesn’t lash out lightly. He knows how to distinguish between temper tantrums and effective actions, and he strives always to do so. His problem...all right, enough referring to myself in the third person...my problem is that we in the Right have deliberately forbidden ourselves to take effective action, while our enemies’ actions escalate ever higher and become ever more effective.

     Have a few links:

     Add to the above the recent reports that AntiFa monsters are preparing “milkshakes” filled with caustics and balloons filled with hydrochloric acid to throw at free-speech demonstrators. Apropos of which, has anyone given five seconds’ thought to why such things are AntiFa’s weapons of choice? Anyone? Bueller?

     Exactly! Because they don’t look like weapons. They give the police no “probable cause” under which to detain and interrogate them, as would guns or knives. So they can tote dangerous substances around, hurl them at their ideological adversaries, cause great harm, and get away with it. Genius, madness, or a fine blend of the two?

     The deterrent effect of Leftists’ tactics upon persons who might otherwise be minded to raise their voices for freedom of expression, or in defense of President Trump and his administration, cannot be measured. How does one determine the magnitude of something that didn’t happen? How does one count the bodies of those who refrained from attending a free-speech rally? Still, ordinary good sense suggests that the effect is significant.

     Pressure is building. The Left is preparing a “Battle of the Bulge.” Meanwhile “our” legislators and executives are maneuvering to betray us on gun rights, immigration and border control, federal spending, and foreign military interventions. It can’t lead to anything good. Growing general awareness of these things among decent Americans must eventually cause an eruption.

     My fear is that we’ll soon see violence on a scale unprecedented in peacetime. What do you fear, Gentle Reader?


     I’m a thinker and a writer. It’s pretty much all I do. It’s pretty much all I can do, given my age and declining health. I’m not about to don camo, break out the arsenal, mount my stallion, ride into the middle of the street, and shout “follow me!” But I’m not the only American disturbed to the point of fear and righteous anger over these developments...am I?

     Who out there is doing anything effective against the would-be tyrants of the Left and their agitators? Who out there is doing anything to keep “our” legislators and executives faithful to their supposed promises?

     At this point The Left is winning. Despite de jure control of the federal government by the GOP, they’re getting what they want. Present trends continuing, the results of the 2020 elections won’t matter. They’re making inroads against us on all the most important issues of the day, while “our” officials wring their hands and plead with the Left to “compromise.”

     The Left is supported by several major donors, by the media, by the Deep State, by AntiFa, and by external forces that would be pleased to see the United States collapse into chaos. Where is the Right’s support? Who stands for the Constitution? Who stands for freedom?

     With more than just lip service, that is.


     There are days on which I emit something like the above, return to my senses, and delete it. This will not be one of them.

     Something drastic is required of us, if we’re to have a nation worthy of respect and defense. I think we’re at the point where counteraction twice as loud and violent as the tactics of the Left is what remains to us. Yes, that means doxxings, harassments, assaults, and armed attacks on those who would attack us. They’ve gotten away with it; so can we – and with apologies to the shade of Jim Morrison, we have both the guns and the numbers.

     There: I’ve said it. Give them back exactly what they’ve given us, in doubled quantity and with doubled fury. Make them feel unsafe in their homes. “Milkshake” them – use chocolate – and let them wonder whether the stains will ever come out of their clothes. Don’t bother yourself about what the media will say; they’re already against us. They report on any harassment or violence against us as if we caused it.

     Above all, give up on civilizing them. Our impotent reliance upon passive rhetoric is another element in what they want: it freezes us in place while they advance.

     How could things get any worse?

     That’s enough for this morning, I think. Excuse me while I harvest a fresh piece of rebar to chew on. And do have a nice day.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

The Cycle Of Desire Part 2: Fulfillment

     Desires are subject to a dynamic of their own. Any given individual’s desires occupy a priority scheme that dictates which ones will receive his immediate attention. Such a scheme is mutable. It often goes through several transformations in the course of a man’s life as desires are added to it and subtracted from it.

     We’re all aware that new desires can emerge according to developments both foreseen and unforeseen. (No one desired a computer before 1950, a smartphone before 1990, or Christina Hendricks before Mad Men.) What causes a desire to be removed from such a list?

     While there may be other forces, the one that functions most effectively to quench a desire is fulfillment. Once fulfilled, the typical desire ceases to motivate its possessor, at least for a time. That seems to be the pattern for nearly all the kinds of desires individuals have known.

     Nearly all. Not all, by any means:

     He who lusts for power over others is inherently evil. I trust this requires no great argument in its justification. The evil man, once he has some degree of power, will use it to acquire more, for power is a drug that doesn’t sate. However, the enjoyment of power requires that it be used. For, as O’Brien said to Winston in 1984, to enjoy your power, you must be actually coercing your victim at the moment:
     ‘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.’

     Ponder that for a moment. Perhaps it’s the second time you’ve seen it here, or the third, or the twentieth. Do it anyway.


     Every society has been afflicted by persons whose sole, unflagging desire is for power over others. Ours is not an exception. Nor are such persons always obvious about their aims.

     It’s not widely known that Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigned for the presidency on a platform of reduced government spending, generally smaller government, and the maintenance of a strong, gold-backed dollar. Yet that is the case. How FDR actually governed was, of course, a hundred eighty degrees from those tenets. How much of that complete departure from stated positions and priorities was because he had intended it from the first, and how much arose from the ambitions of his “brain trust,” we cannot know. But we can know this: FDR intended to remain president until he died. By the end of his second term, he had become convinced that the office was his by right – that no one else was fit to occupy it.

     Power was what FDR most wanted in this world. That marked him as one who must not get it. But once he was in the Oval Office, in command of the vast executive powers of the federal government, it was too late to prevent it.

     Today there are many persons as avid for complete, unopposable power over these United States as was FDR. Twenty-odd such persons (and some of them are very odd indeed) are currently contending for the Democrat Party’s nomination in 2000. Perhaps one of them will be the nominee; perhaps some “dark horse” will arise late in the campaign to snatch the nod. Regardless of the identity of the nominee, he will be a person who desires power above all other things, for that is what it takes to be a Democrat of great prominence in our time.

     The moral “should” be “obvious.”


     Barack Obama greatly desired to disarm American citizens. He edged toward trying it through executive order at several points, but held back from the attempt. We cannot know what inhibited him. We can know this: It is the development the Left desires above all others.

     I wrote not long ago that the Left is desperate, and that desperate people do desperate things. The unprecedented success of the Trump Administration, the Democrat Party’s realization of the inadequacy of its current “leaders,” and the impending storm of indictments it fears over the “Russian collusion” hoax and what powered it, are raising that desperation to new heights. The probability of a desperation play, a “political Hail Mary” from the Left, is higher than ever.

     The imposition of true totalitarian rule upon Americans requires that we first be disarmed. Unfortunately for the Left, far too many Americans are aware of this. It has been said that the First Amendment depends upon the maintenance of the rights protected by the Second. It is equally true that the Second Amendment depends upon the awareness of events and trends made possible by the First. Thus, both those guarantees are under intense attack. Soon both might be the focus of a “Reichstag fire” event, after which the Left hopes the clamor for their suspension will be too great to resist.

     If you’re not armed and ready to defend those rights, you don’t have much time left to get there.


     The key to all of this is the recognition that the desire for power, once fulfilled, only excites that desire to a higher magnitude. Other desires are not like that. For that reason we cannot hope to appease those who want power over us. History speaks to this in a voice of thunder.

     Be armed and ready. Know your neighbors and what they stand for, and make sure they know the same about you. And stay alert for power-lusters making false promises of peace and harmony if you’ll just give up a few “obsolete” rights. They’re more desperate than ever before.

Monday, August 5, 2019

The Cycle Of Desire

     "In this life no one can fulfill his longing, nor can any creature satisfy man’s desire. Only God satisfies, he infinitely exceeds all other pleasures. That is why man can rest in nothing but God." – St. Thomas Aquinas

     I have a hot flash for you, Gentle Reader. It’s in several parts, so please bear with me as I assemble and elucidate it.

     Part One: Man possesses free will. He is individually motivated, and decides on his course of action as an individual.

     Part Two: Desires are individual and arbitrary. That applies even to what we imagine to be “needs.” Not everyone sees them or prioritizes them the same way.

     Part Three: While we possess acute perceptions and the faculty of reason, no power on Earth is capable of compelling us to use them. When it is possible for an individual to absolve or exculpate himself for some misfortune, he is likely to do so regardless of the facts. It is in the nature of things that he will then look for another agency to blame for his unhappiness.

     Part Four: The numbers matter. As Mankind expands, the sub-percentages of Mankind that:

  1. Choose to do evil; or:
  2. Are insane and do evil out of their insanity;

     ...will increase in proportion.

     Part Five: Those most ardent for power over others are those most likely to get it – and they’re exactly the sort of people who must be prevented from obtaining it. History speaks to this truth with an eloquence and a force that cannot be gainsaid without eliminating all knowledge of history.

     These are well established characteristics of Homo sapiens terrestrialis and the reality it occupies. No scheme, regardless of its overt aim, that contradicts them can possibly work to general betterment. Neither is it possible to eliminate adversity, tragedy, or atrocity from our experiences without eliminating Mankind itself...and let it be said clearly and concisely that I oppose that particular route to Utopia.

     (See also this collection of essays.)

     Wait here while I fetch more coffee.


     “My lord?” Fountain murmured from his right side.
     “Yes, dear?”
     “Is Miss Rachel a special person?”
     Sokoloff smiled. “Yes, she is. Very special. She’s a great scientist who’s done wonderful things. She’s helped a lot of people.”
     “What is a scientist?”
     He chose his words carefully. “A person who works to add to what we know.”
     “Why would anyone want to hurt such a person?”
     “Fountain, there are people who want to hurt anyone we could name. There are people who simply want to hurt someone, it doesn’t matter who. We don’t always know the reasons. Sometimes they don’t either.”

     [From The Wise and the Mad]

     Larry Sokoloff speaks an unimpeachable truth in the above: There are people who simply want to hurt other people. Some have reasons...or think they do. Others are aware that their real desire is to destroy, to wound, and to kill. Two such persons committed a pair of mass murders just yesterday, in El Paso, TX and Dayton, OH.

     Those were not unprecedented events. Neither were they likely to be the last events of their kind. Once under way, there was only one way to halt them: by the countervailing use of extreme violence against their perpetrators. However, no one in the zones of impact was equipped to do so.

     What do the Five Postulates of the previous section tell you about what occurred and what power-seekers have said in the aftermath? Do they hint at a means of anticipating and completely preventing such atrocities, or do they suggest that the effort would be futile? If the latter, do they suggest a policy by which such events might be more effectively limited than they were in yesterday’s slaughters? What course would a well-intentioned Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch adopt, assuming he is not prevented from doing so by external forces, to ready himself for such a possibility?

     Yes, these are questions we’ve faced and answered before. But just now the power-seekers of the Left are thick on the ground and more vociferous than usual. Campaign season, don’t y’know. So it’s time to reassert the answers with additional force.


     Remember the prevalence of agendaism:

     The overarching principle of agendaism is that with the right tactics, the right publicity, and the right "slant," an event can be made to serve any agenda whatsoever, as long as the tactics are properly fitted to the event.

     There are numerous agendaists in public life today. Broadly speaking, any politically active person, whether he's a public official or a private citizen, who is indissolubly attached to his agenda, such that neither reason nor evidence could possibly sway him from it, is an agendaist. Some, of course, are more effective than others, but the defining characteristic is that unbreakable attachment to a set of unchanging political goals.

     Why would anyone be so fixated on a specific set of goals, even in the teeth of contrary reasoning and evidence? Unclear. Perhaps the only answer available is Aristotelian: action to advance those goals is what makes him happy, or what he thinks will make him happy. Always remember The Algorithm:

  1. Select a technique that you think will get you what you think you want.
  2. Will this technique require you to lose body parts, go to jail, or burn in Hell?
    • If so, return to step 1.
    • If not, proceed to step 3.
  3. Do a little of it.
  4. Are you at your goal, approaching it, or receding from it?
    • If at your goal, stop.
    • If approaching, return to step 3.
    • If receding, return to step 1.

     ...and bear in mind that "what you think you want" is not covered by the above; it's beyond all rational investigation.

     Gun control is an important item on many agendaists' agendas. Never mind that criminals are the least likely persons on Earth to comply with a gun ban or gun registration law. Never mind that removing weapons from the hands of the peaceable and law-abiding cannot possibly bring about a reduction in violent crimes or crimes against property. Never mind that disarming a man renders him helpless before an armed predator. A gun-control agendaist seeks to disarm us peones because he thinks it will make him happy to have done so. You cannot persuade him otherwise.

     Agendaists are like that.

     It was true when I first wrote it. It remains true today.


     The title of this piece might have puzzled you up to now. Long time Gentle Readers are aware of my quirkiness with titles. Nevertheless, this one has a sharp focus.

     There are people who simply want to hurt other people. The rest of us – the men of good will – must be prepared to act against them wherever they might turn up. There are people who want to deprive us of the means by which we might do that. We must oppose those people and their gropings for power over us by any and all means necessary. For the latter group is in league with the former: perhaps not consciously but in ultimate effect, owing to the results of The Algorithm as they have run it.

     We desire peace, safety, and public civility. They desire chaos, suffering, and bloodshed...or are willing to tolerate it as long as it will serve their purposes. Each of us decides, acts, and evaluates according to The Algorithm. Note that the mass murderers only appear where we have been forced to go defenseless. By now we should have learned the lesson.

     As for the power-seekers who have allied themselves de facto with those who seek to harm others, there is no imaginable rebuff, however severe, that they do not deserve. Force them to confront our displeasure: publicly, baldly, and in the strongest possible terms. Tell them that the blood of the victims of El Paso and Dayton is on their hands. Forbid them to pontificate or self-exculpate. Weigh in upon them that they possess armed guards, whereas the rest of us aren’t even permitted to defend ourselves.

     The stakes are at their maximum.