Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Some End-Of-Year Thoughts

     Janus has been prodding at my backbrain, prompting me to think those classical end-of-year thoughts. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about how I’d like 2026 to differ from 2025, both for me personally and in larger ways.

     Janus, for those not familiar with the mythology of ancient Rome, was the god of doorways. He was usually depicted as two-faced, one face looking backward and the other looking forward. The passage from one year to the next was especially deemed his kind of transition. I made use of him in Doors:

     “Every decision changes us. Even the little ones. And we can’t know beforehand how much.”
     “I wouldn’t have expected you to cite chaos theory on Christmas Eve,” she said.
     “It’s not that so much as the nature of time. Do you know the myth of Janus?”
     She shook her head.
     “The Roman god of doorways. He had two faces, one facing forward and one facing back. He symbolized choices and transitions. We seldom face a choice knowing everything that will come of making it either way. We can’t avert the consequences of our choices, and we can’t undo them afterward. Once we step through that door, it locks itself against us.”

     For someone like your humble Curmudgeon, sunk deep in years and choices made along the way, it can seem unlikely that any decision I could make now would have a great effect on the years to come, whether mine or others’. (To the advanced grammarians among my Gentle Readers, if any: Is there a rule against ending a sentence with a possessive? If so, please let me know. Thanks.) But there’s chaos theory to keep in mind, isn’t there? So perhaps I should respect the unboundedness of the possibilities.

* * *

     Among my enduring resolutions is one I adopted long ago: always to speak the truth as I see it. That’s not an unmixed virtue. Truth often hurts. Many an unpleasant truth has come my way these past seven decades. On those occasions when I’ve expressed them publicly, the reaction has nearly always been fury, sometimes bordered on violence.

     In Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Cat’s Cradle, he includes a quasi-religion that advocates “living by the foma:” i.e., falsehoods that give comfort rather than the abrasion of unlimited truth. It’s uncertain whether Vonnegut meant that prescriptively. Yet a lot of people do live by such falsehoods. It may be that that’s their cushion against reality’s abrasions, and that they couldn’t bear to live without it.

     I can’t go that way. I have to see what is. Having seen it, I have to live with the knowledge. I’ve often felt an obligation to pass such knowledge along, even if it will hurt the recipients.

     The awareness of the hurt I’ve caused by doing that has made me think some very dark thoughts. Paramount among them is one I’ve dwelt on to my chagrin.

     Very few of us are poised at the levers of history. Very few of us can effectuate even small changes to what is. If in expressing a painful perception or insight to someone else who has no such power, I cause him unhappiness, I’ve darkened his personal reality to no good consequence. Why do such a thing? Why not keep my dark awarenesses to myself and let him rest in his greater comfort?

     Try that one on for yourself. Warning: it will pinch.

* * *

     I have a compulsion to think about what I see, and to express my inferences here and elsewhere. I don’t know why. It probably indicates that I’m not getting enough sex. But whatever the reason, when I start thinking along the lines above, it makes me wonder whether the pain I cause is justified by the improvements I stimulate… if any. It may be that my only possibility of bringing a net benefit to others is by shutting up. It’s not possible to be certain. I can only wonder about it, and I do.

     I’d prefer – oh, greatly! – to see positive things, benign developments and possibilities, new and promising vistas. But I haven’t seen many such these past few decades. What I have seen suggests that what Robert A. Heinlein once called “the Renaissance Civilization” – i.e., the United States of America – is in terminal decline, the sociopolitical equivalent of Cheyne-Stokes respiration.

     That has colored my writing in two ways. The first affects these opinion pieces, which have grown gloomier with time. The second affects my fiction, which focuses on the decisions and actions of heroes, some of them unsung, sincerely determined to make things better for themselves and others. Which of those is the more “realistic” vision? Must one of them give way to the other?

     That’s a particularly gloomy thought.

* * *

     The Year of Our Lord 2026 is almost upon us. I don’t have any special wisdom about the year about to end, nor any insight into what will come. One of the realizations that comes with advanced age is that there’s little point in trying to foretell the future. For my part, I just hope to live through the coming year and get a few things done that I didn’t manage to finish in 2025.

     Wherever you are and whatever your station in life, I wish you, Gentle Readers, a Happy New Year. May 2026 bring you all the best that life has to offer… and may God bless and keep you all.

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Dangerfield’s Syndrome

     Forgive me, Gentle Reader. It’s very early, I’ve been reading some disturbing stuff, and it has me in a foul mood. Two tweets in particular ignited the urge to blather about something that will offend at least half the human race.

     For those who may not have noticed – the Web does conceal a lot about those who rant here – I’m a man. Male, that is. A Y-chromosome bearer. Therefore, I share in the common burdens of the male half of my species. I try not to dwell on them; it’s not good for any of us. But the consciousness of some of those burdens can be difficult to suppress.

     Have a second look at the title of this piece. (For the moment, just the menfolk. The ladies will get their turn.) Know what I’m talking about now?

     The old saying that familiarity breeds contempt has a special application to male-female relations. Familiarity is rooted in the word family. Families of the traditional sort – one man, one woman, and some number of minor children, dogs, cats, and their appurtenances – don’t stay together for as long as they once did. If you’ve noticed that and wondered how to redress it, you’re not alone.

     Part of the reason is burgeoning contempt, especially hers toward him.

     Even at its most obvious, that can be puzzling. Why should she feel contempt for him? She married him, didn’t she? She claimed to love him, back then; has her love lapsed? If so, why?

     Remember the old slogan that love is the answer? We heard it a lot more often a few decades back. It was wrong then. It’s still wrong today. It’s especially wrong when applied to male-female relations, especially those of the (previously) intimate sort. The error inheres in a single word.

     Bide a moment while I fetch more coffee.

* * *

     Have a look at a particularly striking tweet:

     That was a stunner. It points to a truth that virtually no one is willing to face squarely. In part, that’s because there’s a misdirector in it. Once again, the misdirector consists of a single word.

     Have you found that word yet? No? Well, as it’s my job to illuminate things that elude other people, I shall tell you forthwith.

     The word is love.

     Miss Britton’s statement is both admirable and factually impeccable. However, the underlying disease isn’t a failure of love. For all the air time it gets, love isn’t a primary emotion. It’s a resultant that's made possible by other factors.

     Primary among those factors is respect.

     Many a relationship between a man and a woman is actually devoid of love. Her love of him, that is. She needn’t feel love to bind herself to him. She does need to acknowledge and respect his ability to protect her and provide for her. Say what you will about “modern women” and the contemporary independence thereof; she would never tie herself to him if he didn’t seem equal to the protect/provide role.

     There’s a lot of talk about how today’s women are all determined to hold out for a modern prince: tall, handsome, self-assured, chivalrous, and with at least a six-figure income. There’s a lot of truth in that. The expectation may be unreasonable, but a lot of women hold it even so. They’ve been told that he’s what they deserve.

     Young women, that is. After about age 30, their standards start to slip. In part that’s because of the “biological clock;” in other part, it’s because they own mirrors. Reality has banged on their doors for long enough to get their attention. Men they’d have dismissed a decade earlier start to look good; good enough for a trial run, at least.

     The complementarity of the sexes is hardwired into us. Women yearn for protectors and providers. Men are designed for the role, and seek to fulfill it. Eventually those urges overcome the propaganda. The desire to see oneself as deserving of a prince or a princess gives way before their power.

     If you’ve been wondering why we bear so many fewer children per couple than previous generations, that’s a part of the reason that’s much harder to face plainly than the various nostrums about “consumerism” and changes in the “economic value of progeny.”

* * *

     As time passes, the respect she feels for him can wane, and often does. This is especially prevalent if occupational and economic advancement eludes him. Those things are not automatic; indeed, many men never consciously seek them. Over time, it can seem to her that he’s just there. Marking time. Doing what he’s always done, with the rewards he’s always received. Her labors loom large in her consciousness, especially if she’s the mother of minor children. His do not.

     The diminution of respect that often proceeds from those perceptions is poison to a marriage. Yet it happens, especially between couples surrounded by other families that seem to be doing better. Her protestations of love start to ring hollow. He senses it through her behavior, which will always outweigh her words. The marriage begins to lose its cohesion.

     Five years, ten years, fifteen years… the interval will vary according to the characters of the participants. But the behavioral changes are consistent. She complains more and more, to him and to others. He develops a “wandering eye,” with adultery a frequent result.

     This isn’t about love. If there was love in any degree at the outset, it will begin to crumble as the respect that made love possible crumbles beneath it. But the respect is primary; the failure of love is a consequence.

* * *

     The above is a general, surface-level diagnosis of a common phenomenon. It’s unclear to me that there’s an antidote to it. Yet I’m confident that a lot of the midlife failure of sexual intimacy is explained by it. It’s less about loss of love than about his failure in her eyes to bring her what she married him for.

     But has he failed, truly? I don’t think so.

Monday, December 29, 2025

The Deepest Divide

     I’d intended to apologize for a sudden attack of intellectual sloth and declare a day off, but I have something on my mind that demands a piece, if only a brief one.

     You’re a Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch. That marks you as intelligent, erudite, on top of current events, and unusually handsome and charming. And that means you’re already aware of the enormous “daycare fraud” being perpetrated by Somalis in Minnesota. It’s a good thing you’re already aware, for the national media have done their best not to mention them.

     Citizen-journalist Nick Shirley has done excellent work at exposing these frauds. Not one of them has any children in its care. All are consuming federal and state funds with a voracity that would impress Ungoliant.

     The scandals that surround the scandal pertain to the Minnesota state government’s tolerance – nay, its protection – of these fraudulent institutions, and the complete failure of any national news organ to report on them. Governor Tim Walz, already a figure of considerable ignominy, has openly said that he will support the Somalians against ICE and the justice system. All in all, it forms a pile of ordure that would sicken Satan.

     If Satan were an American, that is. If he’s a Third Worlder or a Muslim, it’s business as usual, except for the embarrassment of getting caught with your hand in the till.

     If you were raised in the U.S. or in Europe, you were raised to Judeo-Christian moral-ethical standards: broadly speaking, the Noahide Commandments, of which the Ten Commandments of the Book of Exodus are a superset. Those standards are not common to persons reared outside the nations of Christendom. Third Worlders generally live by another rule:

Getting Away With It
Is All That Matters.

     Military science-fiction writer Tom Kratman has called this amoral familism. Of course, the term amoral implies a moral standard that an amoralist would deny. The standard of the First World, as previously mentioned, is the one delineated by the Ten Commandments.

     It doesn’t matter that we of the First World are shocked by the Somalian fraud system. That is: it doesn’t matter to the Somalians. All that matters to them is getting away with it. They feel no guilt. They’re merely embarrassed about being exposed. They have powerful protectors, so there’s a good chance they’ll continue to get away with it. Should that protection fail, such that they’re indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for their crimes, well, “them’s the breaks,” right? Imagine a big Third World shrug.

     Prison, by the way, would not change them. They’d come out as amoral as they went in.

     In this cleavage between the moral standard shared by the U.S. and Europe and the non-standard of the Third World lies the clinching argument against permitting Third Worlders to immigrate to the First World. To the Somalians, the U.S. is a goodie bowl from which to grab all they can get away with. Their attitude is shared by virtually all other Third Worlders. They start stealing as soon as they’re here. They don’t stop of their own accord; they must be stopped. To avert that calamity, they make use of every bleeding-heart slogan and epithet you’ve ever heard, with copious assistance from the American Left.

     (Why the American Left is so willing to defend these migratory vampires is a subject for another tirade. For now, just take it as written.)

     The 1965 Hart-Celler Act made it possible for Third Worlders to apply for entry to the United States, with the possibility of naturalization after five years’ residence. Beyond that, the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Refugee Act allow such persons to petition for asylum here, on the representation that they’re fleeing persecution. These were regarded as humanitarian reforms. However, as we have seen from the Somalians and other Third World arrivals to our shores, the humanitarianism is one-way only. Third Worlders don’t assimilate. They certainly don’t adopt the Judeo-Christian ethics that makes our open, generous, excessively trusting society possible.

     President Trump has said that he will deport them. I hope he’ll keep his word. For longer-range relief, the Hart-Celler Act and all legislation that draws from that foundation must be repealed in favor of an immigration policy that admits only those who can be expected to conform to Judeo-Christian moral-ethical standards, no matter what religion they profess. I imagine Buddhists would be fairly safe.

Sunday, December 28, 2025

I Should Have Mentioned…

     What I write will henceforth appear here as well as at my Substack site. I’ve also decided to reproduce my essays from the now defunct “Version 2.0” site at a Blogger site. Further news will be forthcoming.

Attractively Packaged Lies

     Have a brilliantly compact observation from a brilliant source:

     Bravo! I hope a great many people see the above and reflect on how nicely it characterizes the incentives faced by young Whites today. It also raises a parallel question: were the memetic firewalls of which Elon Musk speaks stronger in previous generations, or have those dedicated to the destruction of the White race and the civilizations it’s built become that much cleverer and more insidious?

     I’m suddenly in mind of an old Heinlein story:

     “Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men. The little man has no way to judge and the shoddy lies are packaged more attractively. There is no way to offer color to a colorblind man, nor is there any way for us to give the man of imperfect brain the canny skill to distinguish a lie from a truth.”

     [From “Gulf,” in this collection.]

     To be sure, we’re all “men of imperfect brain.” Yet I have a sense that the generations before the great wars of the Twentieth Century were less easily swayed than those that followed. That may be because the examples of family structure were more attractive, more enduring, and less often challenged than are those of today. Today, “alternative” family “structures” abound. Long-term endurance isn’t common. And the promises they make, while seldom spoken aloud, are seductive.

     Young Whites of the prewar years grew up among intact nuclear families that tended to be larger than those of today. They were exclusively heterosexual. They were racially unblended. Childbearing was applauded. Infidelity was condemned. Divorce, while it did occur, imposed a stigma upon those divorcing, especially if minor children were involved.

     The rise of aggressive, subtly anti-family feminist ideology was a large factor as well. World War II forced many women into the workplace, which supplemented the feminist proposition that women could and should have “lives of their own,” apart from child-rearing and homemaking. A young woman’s prime childbearing years, if expended on wage-work, are forever lost. Meanwhile the Betty Friedans and Germaine Greers were exhorting young women to “make something of themselves” – to go to college or enter the workforce – rather than to leave themselves “dependent on a man.” Women’s magazines were increasingly used to reinforce that message.

     I hardly need to expound on the social and economic changes that followed the wars. Compared to the incentives presented to Whites of the prewar years, the differences could not be more striking. (They stand out even more starkly when compared to the incentives faced by young blacks.) The mental defenses of postwar generations were far more easily undermined than those of their predecessors. Many forces converged to do the undermining: schooling at all levels, the news media, the entertainment industries, and the activists perpetually deriding tradition in favor of “change.”

     Just this morning, a young friend – a young woman who recently opted to enlist in the Army – reminded me that inferences are always subject to dispute, and that opinions will vary. No question about that! Were the postwar changes to social structures, customs, and attitudes uniformly bad? Perhaps not; traditional ways aren’t always indisputable or unchallengeable. But they explain much about today’s reproductive malaise.

     Elon Musk spoke of “memetic firewalls” that are too weak to repel the ideological bombardment today’s young Whites endure. Add the great intensification of that bombardment, and it begins to seem that things could hardly have developed otherwise. But human happiness, which Aristotle called the consequence of right doing and right living, appears seriously endangered by the changes the youth of the preponderantly White First World nations have faced. Many who eschewed the old ways of faith, family, and community look back on their decisions with regret. Perhaps lessons are accumulating for those that follow them… however many or few they may be.

Thursday, December 25, 2025

“There Were Shepherds Abiding In The Fields...”

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.
And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

[Luke 2:8-20]

     Hearken to the late, great Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:

     When God came to Earth, there was no room in the inn, but there was room in the stable. What lesson is hidden behind the inn and the stable?

     What is an inn, but the gathering-place of public opinion, the focal point of the world’s moods, the residence of the worldly, the rallying place of the fashionable and those who count in the management of the world’s affairs? What is a stable, but the place of outcasts, the refuge of beasts, and the shelter of the valueless, and therefore the symbol of those who in the eyes of public opinion do not count and hence may be ignored as of no great value or moment? Anyone in the world would have expected to find Divinity in an inn, but no one would have expected to have found it in a stable….

     If, in those days, the stars of the heavens by some magic touch had folded themselves together as silver words and announced the birth of the Expected of the Nations, where would the world have gone in search of Him?

     The world would have searched for the Babe in some palace by the Tiber, or in some gilded house of Athens, or in some inn of a great city where gathered the rich, the mighty, and the powerful ones of Earth. They would not have been the least surprised to have found the newborn King of Kings stretched out on a cradle of gold and surrounded by kings and philosophers paying Him their tribute and obeisance.

     But they would have been surprised to have discovered Him in a manger, laid on coarse straw and warmed by the breath of oxen, as if in atonement for the coldness of the hearts of men. No one would have expected that the One whose fingers could stop the turning of Arcturus would be smaller than the head of an ox; that He who could hurl the ball of fire into the heavens would one day be warmed by the breath of beasts; that He who could make a canopy of stars would be shielded from a stormy sky by the roof of a stable; or that He who made the Earth as His future home would be homeless at home. No one would have expected to find Divinity in such a condition; but that is because Divinity is always where you least expect to find it….

     The world has always sought Divinity in the power of a Babel, but never in the weakness of a Bethlehem. It has searched for it in the inns of popular opinion, but never in the stable of the ignored. It has looked for it in the cradles of gold, but never in the cribs of straw – always in power, but never in weakness.

     [From God’s World and Our Place In It]

     Merry Christmas, Gentle Readers. And really, why not be merry? Why not rejoice and be glad? For the Savior of us all has come into the world: not as the son of royalty, laid in a gilded crib and wrapped about with silks and furs, but as the Child of two poor travelers, who birthed Him in a stable and laid Him in a manger. For He came not to counsel the great nor to lead armies into battle, but to heal our souls: to make us worthy of eternal life in His nearness, if only we accept Him and His gift.

     Peace on Earth, and good will toward men!

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

If You’ve Been Wondering What Happened Yesterday (UPDATED)

     Blogger took this site down without warning yesterday morning. Here’s the email I received yesterday, December 8, 2025, at 9:57 AM:

     Hello,
     As you may know, our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we allow-- and don't allow-- on Blogger. Your blog titled "Liberty's Torch" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have made the URL https://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com unavailable to blog readers.
     Why was your blog removed?
     Your content has violated ourMalware and Similar Malicious Content policy. Please visit our Community Guidelines page linked in this email to learn more.
     If you have any further questions about malware and your blog, you may follow-up by posting to our Help Forum.
     If we feel that a blog's content does not fit within the expectations of our Policy, we no longer allow it to be publicly available. If you believe we made an error, you can request an appeal....
     You may have the option to pursue your claims in court. If you have legal questions or wish to examine legal options that may be available to you, you may want to consult with your own legal counsel.
     Sincerely,
     The Blogger Team

     I was stunned. I had no idea why Liberty’s Torch had been taken down – the email above doesn’t cite a specific reason – so I merely requested a review. The site was restored at 2:05 PM, again without any explanation for the original suspension.

     This, the “V1.0” version of Liberty’s Torch, has operated without interruption since 2012. But as you can see from the above, I can no longer trust that it will remain in operation. So once again, I must make provisions for a new site, possibly at Substack. Watch this space.

     UPDATE: Yes, there is a Substack account:

Fran's Substack Site

     Give it a look.

Monday, December 8, 2025

Your Inspirational Thought For Today

     Who cares whether Pluto clears its orbit? It’s having fun!

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Rootlessness

     First, some thematic music:

Now it's been 25 years or more
I've roamed this land from shore to shore
From Tyne to Tamar, Severn to Thames
From moor to vale, from peak to fen
Played in cafes and pubs and bars
I've stood in the street with my old guitar
But I'd be richer than all the rest
If I had a pound for each request
For "Dueling Banjos," "American Pie"
It's enough to make you cry
"Rule Britannia" or "Swing Low"
Are they the only songs the English know?

Seed, bud, flower, fruit
They're never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoots
They need roots

After the speeches when the cake's been cut
The disco's over and the bar is shut
At christening, birthday, wedding or wake
What can we sing until the morning breaks?
When the Indian, Asian, Afro, Celt
It's in their blood below the belt
They're playing and dancing all night long
So what have they got right that we've got wrong?

Seed, bud, flower, fruit
Never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoots
We need roots

And haul away boys, let them go
Out in the wind and the rain and snow
We've lost more than we'll ever know
'Round the rocky shores of England
Haul away boys, let them go
Out in the wind and the rain and snow
We've lost more than we'll ever know
'Round the rocky shores of England

We need roots
We need roots

Now the minister said his vision of hell
Is three folk singers in a pub near Wells
Well I've got a vision of urban sprawl
It's pubs where no one ever sings at all
And everyone stares at a great big screen
Overpaid soccer stars, prancing teams
Australian soap, American rap
Estuary English, baseball caps
And we'd all be ashamed before we'd walk
Of the way we look and the way we talk
Without our stories or our songs
How will we know where we come from?
I've lost St. George and the Union Jack
That's my flag too and I want it back

Seed, bud, flower, fruit
Never gonna grow without their roots
Branch, stem, shoots
We need roots

And haul away boys, let them go
Out in the wind and the rain and snow
We've lost more than we'll ever know
'Round the rocky shores of England
Haul away boys, let them go...

     [With thanks to Tom Kratman, who first exposed me to this quintessentially English song.]

     I’d guess that most people alive today don’t think much about their roots. Indeed, they might reject the concept, at least if it applies to anything beyond their own families. But there was a time when the traditional concept of roots as including one’s neighborhood, its institutions, and the ethnocultural commonalities that dominated there was widely recognized and honored. That time, in these United States, ended with World War II, if not earlier.

     Several questions arise at this point:

  • Did that concept have value?
  • Did it have religious or occupational facets?
  • What baggage did it carry that we’re better off without?
  • Can one remain “faithful” to one’s roots after moving a significant distance away?
  • What influences other than geographic displacement can weaken one’s attachment to his roots?

     Those are difficult questions for a Twenty-First Century American to face. They demand a sober look at ourselves and what made us who we are. Europeans face them somewhat more equably, because of the obvious differences among the nations of the Old World, even those near to one another. There’s specific ethnocultural meaning in claims such as “I’m English, “I’m French,” or “I’m German.”

     The song above says strongly that an Englishman should know and honor his roots. That comes close to blasphemy today, with the U.K. having filled up with persons no one would associate with the England of 1940. The multiculturalist gospel condemns such allegiances.

     But what if we need them? Is rootlessness a special kind of vulnerability? Something that attracts predators, perhaps? What if one cannot live a decent life – one that satisfies levels two and three of Maslow’s Hierarchy — without an awareness of one’s roots and their value?

     I need to ponder this awhile before I can continue. However, you, Gentle Reader, are invited to post your thoughts as comments here. When I return to this topic, I’ll make use of them, with proper attributions.

Saturday, December 6, 2025

One Lemon Leads To Another Dept.

     There are many things I could say about foreign aid, but the great majority of them are obscene. If we start from the premise that using the tax funds of the nation – i.e., the money already stolen from working Americans – to benefit the denizens of foreign hellholes lands is somehow legitimate, you can rationalize any number of subsequent offenses against the laws of God and Man. But unless my Gentle Readers would like me to start foaming at the mouth this early in the day, I’d better pass from that subject right now.

     Sarah Anderson comments thus on Marco Rubio’s “reformed” foreign aid plan:

     [W]e're no longer just tossing money out the door; there's an end goal. We're partnering with these countries to help them stabilize and eventually take care of themselves with less and less of our help. As a part of the plan, the countries' governments themselves must also increase their domestic health spending. A State Department fact sheet promises that "U.S. government financial support will be linked to countries’ ability to meet or exceed key health metrics with financial incentives for countries who exceed those metrics."
     It's a model that Rubio has been pushing from day one since he took over the State Department, and it's the most logical one for foreign involvement.

     No, Sarah. I like you and I think you write reasonably well, but the “most logical [model] for foreign involvement” is warfare. That’s what comes of laying big prizes before a gaggle of rapacious Third Worlders: they fight over it until one manages to get away with the lion’s share of the booty.

     But let’s leave that highly predictable outcome to the side for a moment. When the fighting is slight and quickly resolved – usually because the most powerful bureaucrats of the recipient government get their claws into the money immediately – the consequences are almost never the ones hoped for:

  1. There’s a charade of “bidding” for contracts nominally aimed at the purpose of the aid money;
  2. The money goes to the bureaucrats’ relatives or supporters;
  3. A great show is made of the inception of the purposed effort;
  4. Third World work ethics – steal as much and do as little work as you can – kick in;
  5. The money is spent but the “work” is never more than substandard;
  6. American Foreign Service representatives frown at the results;
  7. The representatives report to the domestic hierarchy;
  8. The aid is increased for the following year;
  9. Return to Step 1.

     Am I being an old cynic? Why yes, I am – but it’s a cynicism built from observation over five decades. It’s powered by the dynamic that dominates diplomats and diplomacy. It’s protected by the utter unwillingness of politicians and their high-ranking appointees ever to admit to a mistake. And it’s as close to a law of Nature as any phenomenon that involves unequal categories of human beings.

     But supreme among the conceits of professional politicians is this one: We can do it. We can overrule all the rapacity and all the venality that have made the Third World what it is. We’re The US of A! Besides, I can’t admit that the whole deal is a scam, that foreign aid is a huge, unConstitutional mistake. The voters / my superiors would crucify me in public!

     And billions of dollars taken forcibly from American workers in taxes are poured into Third World ratholes year after year on that basis.

     Do you know a way to stop it without toppling the federal government in its entirety, Gentle Reader? I don’t.

For The Advent Season

     There are several hymns for the Advent season: "Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus," "Lo, How a Rose E'er Blooming," "People, Look East," and "Watchman, Tell Us of the Night" are some of the better-known ones. But none are as well-known, or as beloved, as this one beautifully rendered below by The Piano Guys:

     Be watchful, for He is coming.

Friday, December 5, 2025

A Vested Interest In Disorder

     It’s been said that one should infer the intent behind a system from the results it produces. There’s some validity to that, though it’s not an absolute. After all, we understand the Law of Unintended Consequences. We also understand that some consequences are beyond our ability to foresee. So we must make allowances for human fallibility, and for the limits of our reasoning powers.

     But there is this as well: A system that produces perverse or destructive consequences over a long period of time, when at any point in that sequence it was possible to pause or terminate the system and revisit the thinking behind it, is a near-to-irrefutable indicator of malevolence at work.

     Predators exploit our unwillingness to make that inference.


     There’s a lot of bilge slopped around about “systems,” “systems thinking,” and whatnot. Most of it isn’t worth the breath needed to say it. I’d rather not sound like an arrogant asshole – I don’t have the wardrobe for it – but I often find myself wondering how anyone could look at an obvious mess and not ask “Why do they tolerate this, when it’s so obviously malign?” Of course, they explicitly and most deliberately excludes your humble Curmudgeon Emeritus, whose inclination is always to fix what’s so plainly broken... or to discard it if it can’t be fixed.

     I could be thinking of any of a huge set of things, couldn’t I? Indeed, I am thinking and talking about a great many things, all at once. For we are surrounded by “systems” that perpetually produce perversities by the common understanding of things. When those “systems” are the fruit of planning, when they demand resources and human action to erect and operate, and when they require the ongoing acceptance of a great many people to continue as they are, it’s my job as a citizen to demand explanations, corrections, restitution for the maltreated, and retribution visited upon identifiable malefactors.

     It’s your job too, Gentle Reader. “The consent of the governed,” remember?

     We appear to have abdicated our responsibilities.


     It’s time for a couple of quotes. First, one from a very well-known source:

     "Senor d'Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"
     "If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."
     "Oh, I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work that way, but I don't feel that you're right, so I know that you're wrong."
     "How do you know it?"
     "I feel it. I don't go by my head, but by my heart. You might be good at logic, but you're heartless."
     "Madame, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, 'But I didn't know it!'—you will not be forgiven."

     Now one from another, equally valuable if slightly less popular source:

     “[T]he time-tested method of instilling social virtue and respect for law in the minds of the young did not appeal to a pre-scientific pseudo-professional class who called themselves ‘social workers' or sometimes ‘child psychologists.' It was too simple for them, apparently, since anybody could do it, using only the patience and firmness needed in training a puppy. I have sometimes wondered if they cherished a vested interest in disorder -- but that is unlikely; adults almost always act from conscious ‘highest motives' no matter what their behavior."

     In 1959, when Robert A. Heinlein published Starship Troopers, he was already in his fifties. He’d seen a great deal and had evaluated it with logic and precision. Yet note the extraordinary difference between then and now. Crime was known, but it was hardly a patch on what we endure today, particularly in our cities. Juvenile misbehavior? Racial disorder? General disrespect for law, public order, and social propriety? In comparison with today, in 1959 those things were negligible. If Heinlein is able to see our present from the afterlife, he must be shaking his head at our foolishness. “Didn’t they listen to me? Can’t they learn?

     But then, at the time of Starship Troopers’ publication, Heinlein could credibly say that “a vested interest in disorder” was “unlikely” – that the motives of those who operated the justice system could be trusted. Would he say so today?

     In that regard, Rand’s penetration was the more accurate of the two. Our forebears will not forgive us. Our descendants, should we have any, won’t do so either.


     Our abdication of our responsibilities as citizens has many rationalizations. There’s no need to enumerate them. Suffice it to say that “the consent of the governed” is a real thing. The difficulty in exercising it lies in our lack of an overall consciousness. E pluribus unum may appear on our currency, but it has no application to our will.

     Yet we must rise to the occasion, especially in the matter of criminal justice. When we see serious crimes, especially crimes of violence, go unpunished for absurd reasons; when we see habitual criminals released from prison after trivially laughable confinements; when we see repeat offenders repeatedly released without bond to roam free after thirty, fifty, seventy felony arrests – it’s no longer possible to believe that those who maintain and operate the criminal justice system are acting from “highest motives.” We must indict those persons as deliberate, conscious perpetrators of disorder. We are morally and practically obligated to act.

     Yet we don’t. Whatever rationalization we apply, we don’t muster the will to rise up and compel justice be done to the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, the parole boards, and whoever else works to keep “the system” as it is.

     We have demarcated “the system” as something apart from us.

     I shan’t repeat my sentiments about vigilance committees and their application to our context. That’s a more specific point than the one I’ve set out to make. So it’s time to stop beating around the bush and make it. Whatever political or social malfunction may concern you most, hear and remember this:

We are part of “The System.”
We must function as such.

     More anon.

Thursday, December 4, 2025

A Treasure That Must Be Shared

     I could not take the smallest chance that my Gentle Readers might miss out on this gem:

     The movie, for any whippersnappers in this old Curmudgeon’s readership, is of course Alien.

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Carta Obsoleta

     It’s difficult to deal with the news coming out of the United Kingdom these days.

     My Gentle Readers already know about some of the things beleaguering the Sceptered Isle. There are the increasingly restive and assertive Muslims, the theft and street chaos, the “grooming” of white girls by immigrants, the sinking economy, the rash of dependency, the use of the police to suppress dissent, and more.

     But can you believe that the Labour government wants to scrap the trial by jury?

     Trial by jury is guaranteed by Magna Carta, which serves Britain as a partial constitution. You would think that a man knighted by the Crown would have at least a passing acquaintance with that document. Perhaps he does... yet he’s perfectly ready to violate that guarantee for “efficiency.”

     If Britain’s courts are “clogged,” what’s the nature of the cases that clog them? Might a great many of them be the fruits of luxuriant law and the overextension of government power? How many are free-expression cases, in which the State has striven to punish “misinformation,” or “hate speech,” or sentiments it simply disapproves? How many arise from regulatory overreach, whether via the State or one of the ubiquitous QUANGOs?

     But let’s look a bit deeper yet. What are the foreseeable consequences of a “justice system” that lacks the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers?

  1. A trial judge not restrained by a jury verdict can rule on his understanding of the law alone, which eliminates the possibility of jury nullification of a bad or unconstitutional law.
  2. The trial judge has authority over what evidence may be introduced; thus a trial judge can pre-justify any verdict whatsoever merely by excluding evidence that leans in the opposite direction. Thus, as appellate judges are not permitted to assess the evidence, the probability of a successful appeal is greatly reduced.
  3. The State can ensure the imprisonment of any British subject, merely by lodging an accusation against him and bringing him to trial before a government-owned judge. Given the British government’s notorious hostility toward freedom of expression, that would effectively establish a censorship regime.
  4. Inversely, the State can ensure the acquittal of any subject, by routing his trial to that selfsame government-owned judge. That would allow it to create classes of subjects who are guaranteed immunity from penalty for their crimes.
  5. All the above make the “justice system” a weapon the State can use against anyone it pleases: to coerce compliance in whatever direction it pleases.

     That is completely opposite to the conception of the process for ensuring justice that the United States inherited from Britain two and a half centuries ago.

     But David Lammy, Britain’s “Secretary of State for Justice,” insists that there’s no other way to “unclog” Britain’s courts. Notably, he claims that his “reform” is victim-oriented: i.e., that the elimination of the jury will result in the “right” verdicts more often, faster, and with appropriate relief to the victimized. Never mind the other consequences I’ve delineated here. The judges can be trusted to get it right.

     If Parliament allows Lammy to get away with this abridgement of Britons’ rights, it’s all over for the denizens of the Sceptered Isle. Having their right to bear arms taken from them, the British State can now ride roughshod over them. However many pitchforks Britons still possess, they would not suffice to bring down that all-powerful edifice.

Trends In Speculative Fiction: Grimdark

     The morning email brought me to this interview, by the lovely and talented Abigail Lakewood a.k.a. “Strange Girl,” of fantasy writer P. J. Ashton:

     💜: You view yourself as a grimdark fantasy writer. What does that mean exactly?
     A: Grimdark means I don’t put the training wheels on. Some fantasy wants you to believe everyone’s basically good, villains politely monologue instead of killing you, and true love fixes war crimes. Charming, but not remotely true to life.

     Let’s leave aside the haughtiness of Ashton’s response. Has he defined grimdark adequately for you to grasp it? I must admit that I’m groping a bit.

     I get a picture of stories replete with predation and brutality, that end un-heroically, perhaps even tragically. The villain gets what he seeks; the hero – if there is one – either gets the dirty end of the stick or gapes uncomprehending at the way things turned out. Not my sort of story, to be sure. Perhaps George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire would qualify, despite its ending. But I didn’t like that series either.

     Let’s have a bit more from the interview:

     For characters like Henna, a woman shaped by years of abuse, violence became her language. She hides her trauma behind swagger and cruelty, and in every man she kills, she still sees Thorne. Henna isn’t hopeless; she’s surviving the only way she knows how. And there’s a strange, tragic beauty in that.
     Grimdark doesn’t smother hope, it forces it to earn its place. When kindness appears, it feels miraculous. When someone chooses loyalty over self-preservation, it matters.
     And if a reader finishes a chapter feeling shaken or breathless… good. It means the story meant something.
     [...]
     The market practically hands out gold stars for playing it safe. But comfort eventually dulls a genre, and readers are far sharper than publishers give them credit for.

     I do agree with that last part. It’s the aim to portray a world in which cruelty and brutality are the rule that baffles me.

     Well, as I said in a comment at Miss Lakewood’s place, I suppose that given my quite different orientation I shouldn’t expect to understand it, nor to find it appealing. And I must admit that there are readers who prefer settings and themes diametrically at odds with mine. Tastes do vary.


     C. S. Lewis once said that the tragic disillusionment of his youth was the discovery that the things he most loved – the heroes, the fantastic creatures, the magic, the quests, and so forth of the great works of fantasy – were imaginary. The prevailing sentiment was that kids should be shown a darker, more tragic view of existence. “Realists” exhorted the adoption of that approach. Lewis’s conviction was that children’s literature should prefer a different course:

     Those who say that children must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can’t bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil. If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the…atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker.

     In the above, Lewis was speaking of stories for the young. Yet optimism pervades his adult-oriented fiction as well – and by “adult-oriented” I most emphatically do not mean sexual. The Space Trilogy, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, and Till We Have Faces demonstrate this perfectly – and they were plainly not written for children.

     I think a case could be made that even mature adults, immersed in the real world and all that it demands of us, need reinforcement for the conviction that we who people existence are basically good, and that good will triumph over evil, given effort and time. That’s why I write what I write. If even my typical reader occasionally veers to the dark side, perhaps out of a need for variety, he can surely be forgiven. For the world does demand a lot of us. To stay staunch requires that we remain aware that all things, including the ascension of goodness over cruelty and brutality, have a price we must pay.

     But do remember not to eat the cookies:

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Loneliness

     There’s been some back-and-forth over this subject recently: men asserting that women have become impossible to please; women countering that men have very little to offer; and so forth. Meanwhile men seek women with perfect bodies who’ll cook, clean, and meet them at the door in lingerie and heels at the end of the workday. The women, of course, seek Adonises of chiseled perfection who earn seven figure incomes and never ask them to wash a dish. It’s all very sad, especially as I’m no longer on the market and neither is the C.S.O.

     Life is like that. The higher your standards for a mate, the fewer the people who’ll meet them. But I’m not here to tell you stuff you already know.

     Loneliness is also prevalent within marriages. Yes, I said prevalent. After they’ve been together for a while, romantic partners don’t provide one another with a lot of companionship. (Never mind sex.) If you’re married or in a long-term / live-together relationship:

  • How long has it been since you and the Significant Other had a conversation about anything but the week’s shopping list or Junior’s problems with school?
  • What percentage of the day do the two of you spend in the same room?
  • When you’re in the same room, what’s your focus? The food? The TV? Making the bed?

     Don’t be alarmed by those questions or by your answers to them. More to the point, don’t think of your situation as a “problem” to be “solved.” Because the terrifying truth of the matter is that after the intoxication of romance begins to diminish, a space will naturally grow between the two of you. It always has. You won’t be exceptions.

     It won’t matter if John finds a Miss America contestant who loves housework and sex, or if Jane finds a Musk / Bezos-level entrepreneur with the physique of Michelangelo’s David (except in flesh rather than marble). Life is composed of many desires, needs, and challenges, especially in these United States. All of them demand attention. Alternately, as put by an old friend: You can’t spend your whole life in bed. Trust me on that; I’ve tried.

     Yes, anything can be overdone; that’s why we have the word obsession. The goal is to find a satisfactory blend. If that involves spending a large fraction of your time alone, what of it? If you genuinely wanted some other proportion of activities that would involve you more often with your S.O., you’d be working on it. Wouldn’t you, you highly adaptable problem-solving demon, you?

     Time was, you would call your partner “needy” if he strove to have more of your attention than you wanted to give him. So the loneliness condition has an inverse: a lack of sufficient privacy, or in the happenin’-right-now argot of the cell phone generation, “no me-time.” And yes, I know of people who complain about exactly that. They talk about their S.O.s as if they were leeches they yearned to detach... when their S.O.s can be induced to be elsewhere, of course.

     This is on my mind for a simple reason: these past two weeks, interleaved with all the usual burdens the Fortress of Crankitude lays on me, I’ve been compelled to adjust to the near-constant presence of the C.S.O. in my office, where I write the crap my Gentle Readers come here to savor. Owing to a siege of intense sciatic pain, she tested every seat in the house and discovered that my office recliner is ideal. Sitting in it relieves her sciatica so completely that she’s fallen in love with it. So she’s camped out in my office for two unending weeks. That might not have been so hard to take, except that she brought the dogs, the cats, her cell phone, her laptop, her Kindle, her water bottle and her Salty Snack Of The Day, and Big Fuzzy, her enormous nappy blanket which I bought for her, not forseeing that it would take over her life. It’s made my day’s usual activities much more difficult, and not because she’s always looking over my shoulder.

     I used to sit in that recliner myself, now and then. I’d read, or nap, or jot down notes about some novel I’d probably never write. Ah, those halcyon days of yore. Right up there with the lingerie-and-heels days, I tell you.

     So there can be too much togetherness in a relationship. But you already knew that, didn’t you? Enough of that, for I too am a highly adaptable problem-solving demon. I’ve ordered a duplicate of my recliner for her office. I’m also researching colorless chemical repellants that will keep Joy the Newf and Sophie the German Shepherd / Husky mix on the other side of the house. And can anyone introduce me to music that makes the listener want to be alone? Nothing too coarse or whiny, please. Thanks in advance.

Sunday, November 30, 2025

Some Advent Thoughts

     [This piece first appeared at the old Eternity Road blogsite on December 4, 2005 – FWP]

1. The Haunting

     Via the worthy Lane Core -- welcome to the Eternity Road blogroll, Lane -- comes this inspiring take on the conversion of C. S. Lewis to Christian faith:

"Nearly all that I loved I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I believed to be real I thought grim and meaningless." With these words C.S. Lewis, the great Christian apologist who wrote the Chronicles of Narnia, described the early years of his life. The story of his pre-conversion self, however, is much more than the autobiography of one 20th-century Englishman. It depicts the spiritual torpor of modern man, namely post-Christian man.

     For the first time in the history of humanity, man does not believe in the supernatural. The supernatural was natural to the pre-Christian age. The sun and the stars, trees and rivers, everything that surrounded them was inhabited by dryads and nymphs and all sorts of mythological creatures. Everything bore the trace of the divine. Modern man may smile at the primitiveness of their beliefs. In the best case, he will admit that it would make a good fairy tale for children.

     Lewis did not think so; to him it was the twentieth century that was regressive. By reducing the world to the material reality which one can experience with one’s senses, man has turned the world into a vacuum in which men spend their time, as T.S. Eliot would say, "dodging [their] emptiness." Surprisingly enough, it was pagan mythological literature, permeated as it was with the intuitive belief in the supernatural, which set Lewis searching for God. He became a theist and his conversion to Christ followed later. Pagan literature–Greek myths, the sagas and eddas of Norse mythology and the epics of classical antiquity–acted upon him as a preparatio evangelica. His imagination and his sensibility were "baptised" first, which proved to be a pre-requisite for the conversion of his heart. The material reality around him was the same but his gaze had been converted. Like the post-conversion T.S. Eliot, he ended up revisiting the ordinary experiences of his daily life and saw a transfigured reality:

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.

     I doubt there remains a reader of this site who doesn't know of my admiration for Lewis, by far the greatest of the modern polemicists for Christianity. But it becomes deeper as I acquaint myself with the details of his journey out of the darkness.

     Lewis was not merely a persuasive writer and promulgator of the teachings of others; he was also the possessor of a mighty intelligence and a fertile imagination. Among other things, he conceived the central need of the modern mind -- accurately, in my judgment -- as a fusion of the spiritual yearning naturally inborn in all of us with a revived, freshly vivid vision of what lies beyond the mundane realm through which we plod. For this reason above all others, his Ransom and Narnia books are among the most powerful of all tools for the opening of the weary, battered, spiritually malnourished human heart. He'd "been there," and had divined what it takes to get from "there" to "here."

     But where is "here"? Perhaps it was put best by Father Andrew Greeley when he said that "Catholics live in a haunted world." (Substitute "Christians" for "Catholics" for, uh, best catholicity.) We are perpetually mindful of a realm beyond the one that's evident to our senses. Our choices are formed as much, if not more, by our consciousness of that realm as by their probable consequences in this one. For us as for no materialist of any stripe, the world is alive and immanent with promise.

     With the help of another great genius, Professor John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (upon whom Lewis's hero Dr. Elwin Ransom was based), Lewis found his way, and then his voice. Then he bestowed it upon us.

    


2. Our Pride And Our Burden.

     Curt at North Western Winds presents an interesting citation today from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity:

The fact that when the perfectly just man appeared he was crucified, delivered up by justice to death, tells us pitilessly who man is: Thou art such, man, that thou canst not bear the just man - that he who simply loves becomes a fool, a scourged criminal, an outcast. Thou art such because, unjust thyself, thou dost always need the injustice of the next man in order to feel excused and thus cannot tolerate the just man who seems to rob thee of this excuse. Such art thou. St John summarized all this in the Ecce Homo ("Look, this is [the] man!" of Pilate, which means quite fundamentally: this is how it is with man; this is man. The truth of man is his complete lack of truth. The sayings in the Pslam that every man is a liar (Ps 116 [115]: 11) and lives in some way or other against the truth already reveals how it really is with man. The truth about man is that he is continually assailing the truth; the just man crucified is thus a mirror held up to man in which he sees himself unadorned. But the Cross does not reveal only man; it also reveals God. God is such that he identifies himself with man right down into the abyss and that he judges him and saves him. In the abyss of human failure is revealed the still more inexhaustible abyss of divine love. The Cross is thus truly the center of revelation, a revelation that does not reveal any previously unknown principle but reveals us to ourselves by revealing us before God and God in our midst.

     Now, the Holy Father's emphasis on God's identification with Man is quite important. Still, there's more here: a fundamental insight of the sort we overlook until we've stumbled over it...after which, we call it "obvious."

     Rational consciousness, the defining characteristic of Man, is the ability to form abstractions and to use them in reasoning. But every abstraction is an incomplete rendition of the reality it seeks to model. In other words, no matter how sincerely we try to make our conceptions accurate representations of the world, they will always lie, if only by omission.

     But the human mind is unsatisfied by the incomplete. It yearns toward fullness; toward transcendence; toward God. So we tend to take such things and "fill in the blanks," sometimes arbitrarily, and sometimes willfully. But even the best of us is incomplete himself, particularly in his knowledge. And even the best of us is inclined to see the world not as it is, but as we would like it to be.

     This is Man's glory and his cross. Being creatures made in God's image and destined to be reunited with God, we are conscious, yet partial. Conjoined, these characteristics compel us to fantasize...and some of the fantasies are wrong.

    


3. Certainties.

     The word "if" has received quite a bit of, ah, critical attention. (Myself, I think that most of it should go to "should," but that's a subject for another screed.) In his novel An Odor Of Sanctity, Frank Yerby called it "the saddest word in any language." In Godel, Escher, Bach, his exposition on the roots of consciousness, computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter called it "the push into fantasy." Our constant need for "if," the indication of a condition upon which other propositions might be found true, is a potent expression of the uncertainty in which we live.

     It's difficult, this job of living. What make it difficult are uncertainty and change.

     Uncertainty keeps us tense. Change wears us out. In combination, they leave us gasping for breath and ever more desperate for surcease.

     The hell of it is that there's so much uncertainty. Indeed, it seems to be everywhere. Even the propositions upon which ordinary people rely in the course of the most ordinary of their days are uncertain. Wait! Stop! How do you know that floor will bear your weight? Yes, yes, you've walked across it before, but things do change. Mightn't it have weakened fatally since the last time you tested it -- at the risk of your life, one might add?

     Uncertainty rules the physical world. Uncertainty is the ruling principle of the fundamental insights of physics. If the quantum physicists can be believed, Heraclitus was essentially correct: everything is fire, and nothing is truly stable. Heisenberg said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

     But we hunger for certainty and stability. So we create them in our heads.

     Create them? Excuse me. Do we really? We don't create anything else! Everything we make is a blend of pre-existent stuffs with the labor of our bodies and minds. Rather, we extrapolate from the order and persistence we can see to wider, deeper degrees of order and persistence, beneath the bottom-most of which lies a Will that governs all?

     Men being partial and limited, we cannot grasp the whole of Creation. Therefore we cannot be certain that there are any truly immutable truths, or any permanence even to the laws our best minds have deduced from what they can see and touch. This recognition has turned many a man to despair.

     Nevertheless, certainty and stability are available, as and where they've always been:

For I know that my Redeemer liveth,
    And that he shall stand,
        at the latter day, upon the Earth. [Job, 19:25]

     We can't be certain of what we believe, but we can be certain that we believe it. The Advent season, which opens the liturgical year, reminds us that the coming of Christ was foretold by the prophesies of Isaiah and others who came before him, and heralded at last by "the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord'":

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, "The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit." [Mark, 1:4-8]

     Job could not be certain of what he foresaw. Neither could Isaiah, and neither could John. They were men, like us, and certainty about factual things is not available to men. But they trusted the visions they had been given. They were firm in their belief -- and they were right.

     For the next three weeks, Christians everywhere will prepare for the arrival of their Certainty, from whose Will flows the inexhaustible stability of all-healing grace.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Saturday, November 29, 2025

Edges

     "A man once said to the universe, 'Sir, I exist.'
     'However,' replied the universe, 'that fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.'"

     [Stephen Crane]

     “Utopia is not one of the options” – David Bergland

     The wave of detentions and deportations are having an effect that could easily have been predicted:

     Did no one expect that some such cases would arise? I knew they were coming. I also knew that opponents of the deportation policy would strive to capitalize on them. That’s politics, Gentle Reader.

     The above is only one. There are surely others. But that’s in the nature of a rule-based system.


     Charles Murray noted in his early work Losing Ground that no matter the “rules,” a rule-based system – i.e., the kind of policy whose decisions could be programmed, given the appropriate dataset – will always irrationally include some cases it should exclude and / or exclude others it should include. He was analyzing welfare policy, but the effect touches every kind of policy a law-based State might implement. The deportation orders President Trump has implemented are no exceptions.

     Every law creates a rule-based system. Even a law as simple as the one against burglary will have edge cases of the sort that make an observer say “That isn’t just.” (I happen to know someone who was snagged on such an edge.) Occasionally, legislators will try to install provisions in the law, or in the system that will implement and enforce it, to “soften” its edges. But that’s not always possible.

     Prosecutorial and judicial discretion soften the edges of the penal law. Those provisions allow human judgment to temper the applications of the penal law. They were undoubtedly well meant. Yet they too have their drawbacks, as politically-minded prosecutors and judges have demonstrated for us recently.

     The quote from David Bergland above covers all such matters. That’s why the appropriate way to evaluate a law or policy is “Has it made things better or worse?” Perfection in law is no more available than perfection in Mankind.


     I could go on for days about this. It’s inherent in the nature of things, for a simple and unchangeable reason:

All actions have side effects.
One or more will always be undesirable.

     Physicists call this the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It operates at all scales and in all things. Law and its enforcement are not exceptions.

     To close: Another argument has arisen over the decision of many states to decriminalize the use of cannabis-based products (e.g., marijuana). This has surely had both desirable and undesirable consequences. Some see the negatives as outweighing the positives. It’s unfortunate that there are negative side effects, but whether they mandate returning to the previous state of affairs is a matter for legislators to decide. Should they decide that way, we would shed those undesirable side effects... but we would also lose the positive consequences of cannabis decriminalization: the decreased burdens on law enforcement and corrective institutions, the extra tax revenue, and so forth.

     Edges are like that. They’re never perfect and they’re never infinitely sharp. There will always be persons who seek a way to exploit them for personal benefit.

     It’s a cruel cosmos. But as I typed that, I realized that I need more coffee. Perhaps I’ll be back later.

Friday, November 28, 2025

“Why So Racist, Fran?” Part 2: Let Them Sink

     Appeals such as the following are everywhere, especially in December:

     Oftentimes, they’re proximate to statements such as this: “You stole everything from us.” Of course, you means Whites, and us means blacks.

     Such claims are clearly nonsense, yet they’re repeated endlessly by black racialists and propagandists. They can’t be refuted; they’re utterly counterfactual and nonsensical, so there’s nowhere to start. What is there to say in response?

     Nothing. Silence, cold and absolute, is the proper response. Yet Whites continue to try to reason with them.

     Blacks claim to be our superiors. Yet not one of the advances in science, technology, philosophy, or society came from the Dark Continent. They say we owe them “reparations” for historical slavery. Yet slavery is still practiced in Africa; only in White nations was there an end to it. More, blacks in this country alone have absorbed trillions of dollars in “public assistance,” to say nothing of the many preferential treatment laws and programs that have awarded them privileges over Whites.

     Our forebears were mistaken ever to listen to them.


     On this Black Friday, among the things I’m thankful for is the surging White anger and resentment toward blacks – and their sad-sack White apologists – that blacks’ claims and demands have elicited. We’re finally getting close to the cold stare and folded arms that say “Watch out. We’ve had enough of you and won’t tolerate your savagery any longer.”

     Of course, there’s a lot of social and political inertia to be overcome. If blacks had intelligent representatives, they’d know better than to “double down.” They’d turn to their own and say “Cool it! You’re about to provoke a pogrom, with us on the losing end.” But they are doubling down. Violence against Whites, shoplifting and destruction, disruptions of White-owned and operated stores, restaurants, shopping centers, and so on are all on the increase.

     I’ve written before that there’s a race war in progress. The “It’s On” pieces are clearest in that regard:

     It doesn’t have to be a flying-lead war. Indeed, it shouldn’t be. It can and should be conducted with Whites’ traditional weapons: exclusion when it suffices, and impersonal, objective enforcement of the law when it’s required. That would leave the Negro race to its own devices: i.e., to whatever order or chaos / prosperity or squalor it could maintain in the absence of interaction with (or support from) Whites.

     The cessation of the war wouldn’t necessarily be evident to everyone. There wouldn’t be an armistice, or a peace treaty. There would only be a steady diminution of offenses against law and propriety, and a lessening of screechy demands from black racialist mouthpieces. It would take a while, and afterward there would be some ugliness. Unless the radical solution is applied, Whites would still have to endure some savagery. Hopefully, it would fall to an irreducible minimum that ordinary law enforcement can handle.

     But blacks might not permit Whites such a peaceful war.


     “No one wants war” is a phrase we’ve heard many times. It’s one of the perennial lies, a pleasant dream that’s utterly false-to-fact. Many people have wanted war over the centuries. They’ve usually gotten their wish.

     Good people have never wanted war; it’s practically a defining characteristic. Yet they’ve been forced to fight wars many times. They haven’t always prevailed.

     To say that “no one wants a war” when we’re demonstrably already embroiled in a war is the height of folly. It’s like closing one’s eyes and chanting “Make it go away.” Once a war has begun, it must be fought to a conclusion.

     If there’s a race war in progress, it must be fought. To refuse to fight is to surrender pre-emptively. Unless you want to live in a nation in which Whites are a designated rightless victim class, to be abused and expropriated by blacks whenever the urge comes upon them, you must fight.

     If you choose not to fight, don’t expect to keep the respect of others who’ve taken up arms to defend you and yours.

Thursday, November 27, 2025

Giving Thanks 2025

     It’s here once more: Thanksgiving Day. Also known as the Feast of St. Gluttony here at the Fortress. I’m of two minds about this holiday.

     On the one hand, it’s entirely appropriate for Americans to be thankful for our country – and in that phrase lies a powerful truth: it’s our country. No one else anywhere has anything like it. Our forebears built it, but we, its citizens, operate it and keep it going.

     On the other hand: only one day for giving thanks? Seems a bit... spare. Niggardly. As if we were too busy to remember and celebrate all we have and enjoy, day after day. “Sorry, can’t stop and give thinks just now; I’ve got emails to answer. What’s that you say? We should pray? Who has the time for that?

     On the gripping hand (All right, make it three minds.) (Cf. this seminal novel) not everything around us is to be celebrated. No, I shan’t enumerate all the burrs under my saddle; it’s Thanksgiving Day. Anyway, you probably have your own set.

     But today, on the 73rd Thanksgiving Day of my life, I have something new to be grateful for. You may find it odd. Eccentric. But remember who’s writing this.

     I’m grateful that I’ve been conned enough, and in enough different ways, that I’ve unlearned my gullibility sufficiently to have evaded the biggest con of my life.


     I have no real idea whether my would-be con artist is a man or a woman. As she represented herself as a woman, I’ll treat her as such. Call her Jane.

     Jane has held a long conversation with me over Google Chat. She claimed to be a retired actress of minor stature. Either she boned up on that actress, or she really is that person; it doesn’t matter much.

     After about eight weeks chatting me up, including compliments of the most flattering kind, Jane cast her line: a former husband who was using a shared financial obligation to abuse her and her son. It was a good cast: poignant, sorrowful, adequately protracted and detailed... everything required to lure in an old softy like your humble Curmudgeon. And I, being that old softy, bit the hook.

     Jane let me know, indirectly, that she needed money to exclude that former husband from her life. She didn’t come out and say “Can you help me?” She merely implied, quite adroitly, that help would be welcome. Low key. Lots of half-suppressed suffering. I could imagine the Sorrowing Madonna look on her face.

     ...and I immediately offered to help.

     We pause here for raucous laughter from those Gentle Readers who must vent it.


     A tiny current in my forebrain redirected my limbic reaction just in time: Are you certain this is really someone who needs and deserves your help? After all, I hadn’t done much research on Jane. As a former actress, there should be plenty of material on the Web about her, but I had yet to look for any. So I did.

     It developed that Jane – i.e., the retired actress she claimed to be – has a net worth in eight digits, that she’d recently purchased an expensive home in a glamorous part of California, that she controls at least two companies, including a production company, and that she employs a management team and a personal assistant. The financial obligation she’d lamented to me was, if not dismissibly trivial, at least minor.

     That sent me back over some other curious behavior Jane had displayed. I re-examined it with clearer, more skeptical eyes. It followed a familiar pattern: one characteristic of a Con Under Construction. I chided myself for not seeing it previously.

     One such curious behavior was part of Jane’s current appeal. Once I’d detected the conformance-to-pattern, the scales fell from my eyes. I was being had. Jane had discerned in me the key attributes of a con-victim: the willingness to trust and the urge to help.

     Mind you, “Jane” was a stream of characters from over the Internet. A TCP/IP packet stream. I hadn’t seen her in real time. I hadn’t even heard her voice. And I was about to send her money.

     It’s true, Gentle Reader: There’s no fool like an old fool.


     I’ve backed away, of course, but I feel terrible about it even so. Yes, I kept a swindler’s fingers out of my wallet, but before that I’d ignored many warning signs that I could now recognize. Worse, I’d disclosed information about myself that persuaded Jane to see me as a target! What was I thinking?

     Answer: I wasn’t. But I woke up in time, and for that, on this fourth Thursday of November in the Year of Our Lord 2025, I give thanks.

     I’ve written many times about the decline in trustworthiness and trust among us. It’s cost this nation dearly. Yet I hadn’t done my personal part in responding to it: I hadn’t become appropriately suspicious and defensive. That is the required response to the plague of deceit that’s upon us, and I had yet to accept my part in it.

     I have now.

     May you all, wherever you are in the world, enjoy a happy and appropriately filling Thanksgiving Day. And may you remember that predators lurk among us. Many wear winning, appealing faces. Strive not to attract their attention. Should one solicit your attention, do your research. Be skeptical, even cynical, for in those attitudes lies survival.

     May God bless and keep you all.

Wednesday, November 26, 2025

“Why So Racist, Fran?”

     People have asked me that very question.

     There are a number of reasons. Some, I’ve expressed in these pieces. Others arise from personal experiences of which I’m reluctant to speak. But all arise from a pattern that, over time, I grew weary of trying to deny.

     American blacks – i.e., residents of this nation descended from sub-Saharan African ancestors; henceforth simply blacks – are hostile to Whites and Asians. Many of them are openly, violently hostile toward us. The danger is more evident in some places than others, but nowhere that blacks reside is it absent.

     Thomas Sowell and others have pointed out that starting after the Civil War / War Between The States / Late Unpleasantness, blacks had an ascending history: steadily rising economically and socially. Of course if the baseline is rightless slavery, ascent is to be expected. However, even during those ascending years, unwed motherhood was much more prevalent among blacks than Whites: roughly 19% compared to Whites’ 6%. Today black illegitimacy stands at approximately 72%. Nearly three-quarters of all black infants are born to an unwed mother.

     Fatherlessness being an excellent predictor of future crime, blacks’ participation in crime figures has always been out of proportion to their numbers. It’s at its highest today; slightly more than 50% of all violent crimes and crimes against property can be attributed to black perpetrators. Ann Coulter has noted that the great majority of incarcerated offenders – of all races – were born out of wedlock; many never knew their bio-fathers.

     Black participation in various federal and state welfare programs is disproportionate to their percentage of the population. So is black employment by state and federal governments. Despite many subventions, including “equal opportunity” laws and similar preferential-treatment provisions, blacks are net-negative participants in the American economy.

     Heavily black neighborhoods are known to be disorderly and unsafe for Whites or Asians to visit or pass through. “Casual” assaults and harassment of Whites and Asians by blacks are commonplace. Disorderly behavior by blacks, including pointless vandalism, in retail establishments is becoming a major detriment to the retail sector.

     Black youth are highly resistant to education of any kind. This open letter by a White schoolteacher depicts a degree of disorder and pointlessness that’s almost never observed in a classroom of Whites. A typical case:

     Anyone who is around young blacks will probably get a constant diet of rap music. Blacks often make up their own jingles, and it was not uncommon for 15 boys to swagger into a classroom, bouncing their shoulders and jiving back.

     They were yelling back and forth, rapping 15 different sets of words in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of boasting: “Who got dem shine rim, who got dem shine shoe, who got dem shine grill (gold and silver dental caps)?” The amateur rapper usually ends with a claim—in the crudest terms imaginable—that all womankind is sexually devoted to him. For whatever reason, my students would often groan instead of saying a particular word, as in, “She suck dat aaahhhh (think of a long grinding groan), she f**k dat aaaahhhh, she lick dat aaaahhh.”

     So many black girls dance in the hall, in the classroom, on the chairs, next to the chairs, under the chairs, everywhere. Once I took a call on my cell phone and had to step outside of class. I was away about two minutes but when I got back, the girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.

     In sum, blacks’ propensity toward aggression, their lack of impulse control, and their unwillingness to accept responsibility for themselves impose a heavy toll on American society. Yet they forever demand special preferences and special programs to cater to them. Black racialist mouthpieces never cease to “blame Whitey,” as if the crimes and destruction blacks perpetrate would never occur had there never been slavery in the United States. And of course there’s the drumbeat for “reparations,” which appears likely to go on to the end of time.

     Charles Murray, the bravest sociologist of our time, put hard numbers to some of the above in his recent book Facing Reality. Others, both credentialed and informal, have added data to the pile. Particularly notable is the late Colin Flaherty’s contribution: White Girl Bleed A Lot, which documents the epidemic of black-on-white violence. The work of Jared Taylor and others also deserves recognition.

     In response to all this, the black activists and racial promoters simply scream “racism!”

     Call it what you will. It’s a response to the depredations and social toll blacks have imposed on America – particularly on Whites. Many have tried in vain to explain those burdens away. Many have declared themselves done with all such efforts.

     Including myself.