A Glimmer Of Hope

     A couple of days ago, something unusual happened Across the Water: A Briton dared to defend another Briton against the threat of rape by an immigrant.

     If you aren’t familiar with the details of the event, the defender was a 14-year-old Scottish girl named Mayah Sommers. The intended victim was her 12-year-old sister. The would-be rapist was from... somewhere else, probably the Middle East or Africa. Mayah protected her sister by brandishing a large knife and a hatchet at the immigrant. Apparently that was enough to daunt him, and thank God for that.

     The story is resounding throughout the U.K. I have no idea how much currency it’s achieved here or elsewhere. Young Mayah is drawing comparisons to Boadicea, to Joan of Arc, and to other courageous women known to history. She deserves as much praise as she’s received, and more.

     However, her courage has had other consequences, not all of which were easy to foresee.

     The one that’s drawn the most cries of outrage was Mayah’s immediate arrest for brandishing a bladed weapon. In emasculated Britain, that’s a criminal offense, and never mind the wherefores. The probability is high that popular sentiment will compel the dismissal of that charge, but as in all such things we must wait and see.

     After that comes the dawning recognition that the U.K.’s laws against even the most minimal personal armament – even carrying pepper spray is outlawed, barring specific police permission – are utterly insane. They amount to a license for the would-be predator to do what he likes to less aggressive and weaker prey. Horror at the idea that innocent Britons – men and women both – are forbidden to possess and carry the means of self-defense has taken a long time to ripen, but today it’s fully upon the Sceptered Isle.

     Third is the de facto position of The State: protect the predator from the consequences of his deeds, especially if he’s an immigrant, a Muslim, or both. Put baldly, it seems incomprehensible. Yet U.K. governments maintain that posture so consistently that one must infer that it was deliberately chosen. It lends weight to the suggestion that The State values the immigrants above the lives and well-being of native Britons.

     Fourth and last is the rising hope that some measure of masculine courage and native pride might be kindled in the larger British populace by Mayah’s actions. I must admit that I hope for that as well. Britain deserves better than to be Islamicized and removed from the brotherhood of Western civilization. But the odds are against it, for a simple reason.

Britons fear weapons more than their invaders.

     The technical term for a fear of weapons is hoplophobia. It seems endemic in the U.K. The suggestion, made by Larry Correia among others, that we should mass-produce and air-drop handguns to beleaguered Britons has been met with rejection by Britons themselves. They fear the consequences of mass armament more than what’s being done to them by the invading hordes.

     Robert A. Heinlein was adamant that a slave must free himself. What of the slave who prefers slavery to freedom?

     This saga may have a few more stanzas to run. Mayah Sommers is being hailed as a symbol of reborn British courage and defiance: a Mockingjay, if you will. Her example may yet galvanize what masculinity and defiance remain buried in the British soul. If it’s simply too ironic that a young teenage girl must teach those things to British men, then so be it. The Sceptered Isle needs her example too badly to quail at the disgrace of it.

What is to be done?

 

Steve Biddle, in one of the comments to my Christmas Day post, “An Epidemic of Politics” agreed with the need to resist evil, but asked  how older, infirm, or otherwise unfit persons ought to go about it. “And I ask in all seriousness: What are we to do?” I was going to post a reply to that question, but quickly realized that the subject was far too involved to cover in a comment, and was worthy of a broader response.  Steve, here is at least the beginning of an answer to your question.

'Chto délat'?' - 'What to do' or 'What is to be done' is famously known as the title of one of Vladimir Illich Lenin' pamphlets extolling the virtues of Marxism and how to establish Socialism in Russia. I knew it was published in the early 1900s but what I did not recall until I looked into it again was that it was inspired by a novel by Chernyshevsky in 1863 written while he was imprisoned in Saint Petersburg. Those interested may find more information in Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(novel).  

It would appear that Liberty loving folk here in these united States are awakening to the idea that their freedoms may indeed be gone if THEY do not do something about it. Most folks, having never considered the subject, are reasonably enough at a loss for how to proceed. One of the reasons that I am a student of history is that while technology changes, human nature does not. It is always worth examining the strategy and tactics of the enemy for useful means and methods, and while I revile the result, one has to regard Lenin's approach as successful, especially since the American Left has emulated it so closely. What did Lenin say should be done?

What Lenin advocated was that there ought to be theoretical, political and economic education system supported and carried out by a political party to provide motivation for the man in the street. What this approach did in essence was to separate the direct action elements from the political elements, and provided a support structure for those folks actively involved in physical confrontation. It also provided a level of deniability to separate the folks who did the talking and educating from the folks that carried out the riots, bombings, sabotage, assassinations and other physical activities. The consciousness raising and propagandizing of the political wing allows persuasion of the undecided,  gradually moving the moderates toward the extremes, and provides a recruiting ground for those willing and capable of direct action. We see this pattern carried out by the Left repeatedly, with a political front organization supporting a violent direct action wing. We see it repeated because it often works. One example is the IRA.

The Irish Republican Army, a Marxist organization, had no more than 300 active members involved in direct action for most of its existence, yet it was able to hold the British Empire at bay and ultimately win a victory. It was able to do that despite constant betrayals by splinter groups and factions, and penetration by British spies because it had Sein Fein as the support/political wing, providing money, food, safe houses, and other support for their fighters, and propagandizing the British ceaselessly. Sein Fein was, (and remains!) a classic Leninist theoretical, political and economic education and support organization.

Similar groups exist within Islamist culture; there are numerous educational and relief organizations believed to be fronts for direct action jihadis. Germany's National Socialist Worker's Party followed a similar approach, with the SA as the tip of the spear (at least until the Nazi party took power, at which point they became a threat!) We see this model in use here in these presently united States today, with the Democratic Party and its allies in the media and technology groups acting as political and indoctrination front groups, and BLM and Antifa, among others, acting as the direct action arms. They are organized, they have abundant funding from corporate appeasers and traitorous billionaires, and they are dedicated to the destruction of America the Free. It is clear that the Left has organized and coordinated their activity; the recent massive election fraud is the result of a coordinated attempt to subvert and overthrow the Constitutional order, which has been under attack for over a century.

Rage is the appropriate emotional response, but rage, by itself, is insufficient. Liberty loving folks are late to the party and we are fragmented, divided and under ongoing assault. So, assuming Biden is illegitimately installed in what will once again be the Spite House, what are we to do about it?

Make our weakness our strength. A grass roots resistance movement numbering in the millions, composed of tens of thousands of small independent cells cannot be effectively infiltrated. Hidden in the body of the American people it cannot be overtly crushed militarily. And with somewhere between 600 million and a billion small arms, with over a million unlicensed machine guns, it cannot be disarmed. Unless we consent.

The road to a successful resistance movement is a journey, and each individual in it has to walk that road at their own pace. The key is starting the journey, establishing the habit of independent thought and action as you take each step. Some may move faster than others and are willing and able to go farther in their journey, but that does not matter as much as your commitment to Liberty.

First, establish your own ideological foundation. Ask yourself, and be sure that you understand the answer to the question, “What is the primary function of government?" If, like me, you believe that the primary function of government is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then you are a friend of Liberty. Satisfy yourself and understand the reasons why you believe that the present actions of the Left are INTOLERABLE. Not just evil, but not to be tolerated under any circumstance. Withdraw your consent from what would be an illegitimate government. Once you have established that in your mind, then take the next step.

The Left want you alone and isolated; this is why the Left is trying to outlaw any sort of congregation under the fiction of infection prevention. Even outdoor activity, which carries a very low risk of CCP virus infection, is under attack. Effective resistance starts with associating with other people, so do not let yourself be isolated. Talk to your local acquaintances at church or other social events. Make a holiday cake or pie for your neighbors and engage them. Sound out your bowling buddies or sewing circle friends about what is happening. Restaurants and bars are good places to congregate when possible; if indoor activity is “not on” then set up outdoor events.

Call your friends and acquaintances, and set up some sort of outdoor activity- a nature walk, a cookout, a trip to the range. When you have those meetings, walk the parking area and look for bumper stickers with pro-liberty messages or promoting pro-liberty political candidates, and ask about why they have that sticker. One of the clubs I belong to has a weekly outdoor get-together at a local park. Don't let yourself be isolated! Reach out and make connections; you can use the fact that the government is trying to isolate you as the entry wedge for a larger discussion about individual freedom. Make it your goal to have at least one event every week, even if it is just a few people. Every meeting of liberty minded folks is, by itself, an act of resistance, for it offers the opportunity of meeting and learning about liberty minded folks. Then take the next step.

From these contacts, build your own 'Committee of Correspondence.' These are acquaintances who have a clear interest in promoting Liberty. Make it your goal to add at least one person per month to your group (which does not even have to have a name.) Encourage your committee to make their opinions known; letters to the editor, comments on Liberty loving blogs and websites, attending local political meetings. (town meetings, county board meetings.) The Sons of Liberty were known to paste up political pronouncements on various local public walls, the Colonial equivalent of graffiti. Signs and billboards with pro-liberty messages are in order. “Stop the Steal!” A public lecture and discussion group is in order, if you can swing it. Invite friendly local leaders to the discussion. Then take the next step.

It is well to keep in mind that any active resistance group requires tremendous logistical support. Modern militaries require at least 10 support personnel for every 1 person in the field, and they rely on government support for their material; taxes pay for fuel, food, ammunition, transportation, lodging, equipment, and all of the myriad of things one needs to deploy an effective military. The support folks are just there to distribute all the stuff that government taxes have bought. Insurgent groups have none of that support. Any effective resistance movement must have a deep base of support for everything needed to fight in the field; the 300 active IRA had tens of thousands of supporters in Ireland, and had millions of dollars, plus small arms and ammunition coming to the movement largely from contributions from the USA. (Reference this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehukpdse8_w  Each of these Armalight rifles came from the US. ) Encourage each member of your group to store food, clothing and other essentials. Such stores are the backbone of active resistance. Then take the next step.

Identify members of your group with useful skills, assets and the willingness to use them to support the fight for freedom. Folks with shooting, gunsmithing and reloading experience are obvious candidates, and equally obvious targets for the Left; some help in diversifying the flow of arms and ammunition is worth consideration. Communications is another obvious need; amateur radio operators or CB operators are useful both for providing communications to the Resistance and in providing signal intelligence. These are all obvious items to consider, but there is much more to be considered under “logistics.” Any experienced combat veteran will tell you that the ability to rest, recuperate and re-equip in a secure comfortable location with good food after combat operations is essential. Being able to provide and move needed supplies from secure storage to the people who will use them likewise. Who can do these things?

That old widow in your sewing group who knows how to make and repair clothing, and has a three bedroom house, with room for “an out of town cousin.” The retired transportation specialist who drives professionally knows how to get anything from one place to another. The amateur carpenter can make hidey holes for those needing to conceal politically incorrect items ranging from arms and ammunition to pamplets and leaflets. The local shoe repair place can mend worn boots for freedom loving feet. The Polish grandfather who makes the best potato salad and sauerkraut, or the farmer who raises chickens, goats and beef cattle. The list is almost endless, but there is one other specialist I will make a point of considering.

Socialist regimes often try to restrict movement of their subjects; historically they've done this with various sorts of physical documents, and the historic answer was forgery, developed to a high art, and to some extent still of use.  These days the up-to-date Communist uses tracking and identification with electronic devices, like your smart phone. The Chinese government does exactly that, and monitors every text, email and telephone message for “incorrect thought.” Who helped them do this? Why, various US tech companies, like Google. Just as IBM enabled the Nazi government to identify the Jews in Germany by applying their data processing technologies to German census data, which the Germans were promised would be confidential, so Google has helped the Communist Chinese to identify their dissidents. Any bets on whether Google would be unwilling to do that here in these presently united States? Resistance groups will need a specialist to spoof and confound these tracking technologies.

A step you can take any time is to learn something new and useful, and teach what you know to the other members of your group. First aid, orienteering, shooting, communications, reloading, growing food, cooking food, camping securely are all obvious topics but there are others. Field repair of clothes, shoes and gear. Combat skills. The list is endless; I consider any day I haven't learned something new to be a wasted day. Now here is another step; it should probably be one of your first, but it will be a hard one for most people.

With the exception of people who run extreme triathlons and engage in other extreme athletics, most people in these united States can benefit from physical exercise, and most people in these united States avoid it like the plague. To paraphrase Michael Z Williamson, “Combat does not determine who is right. Combat determines who is left.” Physical fitness is the foundation for becoming combat ready, regardless of your age. Keep in mind that during the final days of the Third Reich, an improvised German unit comprised of old gamekeepers and hunters ruined several units of elite British troops. One surmises that these old Germans, while not able to perform as they could when young, were likely in very good condition for their age. With that and their hunting skills, they devastated their opponents. Whatever your age, spend an hour every day on improving your physical fitness, both strength and cardio. Any exercise is better than no exercise, and walking is a good start. Get exercise! Then once you have exercise established as a habit, take another step.

We've talked about the need for the Freedom Forces to have a robust logistical infrastructure, but we must also consider attriting the Left's infrastructure. One way to do this is to shun them. Have nothing to do with a Leftist; refuse them service if you can. If forced to, give crappy service in the guise of stupidity or incompetence. If you are a barista, put salt in their coffee instead of sugar, or put too much sugar in.  Never give them what they want. Overcharge them. Give them the two day old pastries or the moldy ones with the mold scraped off, especially if they are taking it “to go”. If you get a complaint, take refuge in the rhetoric of the Left, accusing them of ageism or sexism, or racism if you are a person of color. If you are involved in online sales and can identify your customer as a leftist, send them the wrong stuff; my wife ordered gloves and got a bunch of food containers, purely by accident. This was amusing, but imagine a Leftist receiving a copy of Trump's "Great Again" instead of the Lenin's "State and Revolution." Confusion in medical records is always interesting if it is possible to do without being traced. The point is, make their interactions with Americans as unpleasant as possible, and never relent. Be innovative and creative. Take another step.

If and when you are ready to take the risk, there are all sorts of other monkeywrenching that you can do. People spend most of their time at home, at work and in their cars; if you know what a communist's activity schedule is there are a myriad of possibilities for the devious and creative that are hugely annoying but stop short of doing physical harm to anybody. I could go on for hours on how *I* might take take such a step, but that is not the point.  

 Each of you, gentle readers, must take your own steps in the direction your best individual judgement tells you best suits you.  The forgoing are just a few suggested steps each of you, O gentle Reader, can take on the journey to becoming an effective member of the Resistance to Tyranny. They are not the only ones, by any means, nor do they have to be taken in any particular order, except for the first. Once you have taken that step, never give up. Never, ever, EVER give up. Keep making new steps. Be uncompromising. Be relentless. Be as brave as you can be.

Most important of all, be DANGEROUS. Remember, the Left have asked for what is coming. Make sure that they get it in fullest measure, and beware of the sin of mercy.  "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." 

With regard to all who seek the Light,

Historian

The Return Of The Vigilance Committee

     Matters are coming to a head:

     Three Philadelphia police officers riding in an unmarked car were checking on a man on a bike when he pulled out a gun and fired at them before a second shooter joined the fray, setting off a gun battle that saw two officers briefly hospitalized, police said.

     The 14th District officers, two men and one woman, were driving down the 1400 block of Sharpnack Street, in the Cedarbrook section of the East Mount Airy neighborhood, when the first gunman pulled up next to them on his bike around 8 p.m. Friday, Philadelphia Police Department Sgt. Eric Gripp said.

     The officer driving the car rolled down his window to check on the man when he suddenly pulled out a gun and started shooting, causing the officer to pull off Sharpnack Street and onto Fayette Street, where he crashed the car into a fence, Gripp said.

     The first gunman kept firing after the officers crashed, striking their vehicle multiple times, with one bullet piercing the car door, going through the seat and hitting the driving officer in the back, Gripp said. The officer’s bulletproof vest saved him, the sergeant added.

     As the cyclist kept shooting, the officers were able to get out of the car and return fire, but that’s when a second shooter further down the street joined in and also rained bullets on the officers, placing them in a crossfire, Gripp said.

     If it went as reported, this seems to have been a “hit:” a planned and coordinated two-person assassination attempt on the Philadelphia police. It’s not the first such attack in recent weeks, though reports of previous attacks on the police have generally not spoken of multiple attackers.

     Glenn Reynolds, not given to excesses of sentiment, opines thus:

     So at what point, faced with assassination attempts, do the police go rogue and form their own death squads to neutralize their enemies? That’s what generally happens in corrupt third-world polities, which is what our Democrat-run cities are becoming.

     One of Glenn’s commenters expands on his thought:

     [I]t WILL NOT create support for gun confiscation. It will, slowly, support the formation of "Societies of Vigilance", in which "law enforcement" is fast and certain, but perhaps at the cost of "justice". Because if I can't call the police to remove a live criminal from my property, I'll call the coroner to remove a dead criminal from my property.

     And indeed, a return of the vigilance committee of the 19th Century West is looking very good.

---

     Vigilance committees, whence we get the pseudo-pejorative vigilante, are of course disparaged, even condemned, in the official histories of the United States. The term of opprobrium most often attached to them is private justice, which is intended to imply that when justice is privatized it ceases to be just. But is that truly the case?

     Yes, some of the vigilance committees of yore did commit excesses. However, the committees arose in response to a need that would not have existed were the “official” mechanisms of justice in those places and times honest and responsive. In The Enterprise of Law, his massive survey of justice systems outside of State control and sanction, Bruce Benson of the Pacific Legal Foundation argues that in many cases the vigilance committee was a superior substitute for the “official” organs of justice:

     Local governments were established to replace privately produced law fairly rapidly in some places in the western frontier, and public police (e.g., sheriffs) were appointed. State and federal officials also appeared on the scene. But in several instances this government law enforcement was so ineffective or corrupt that private citizens had to re-establish law and order. As Alan Valentine wrote, “If the people had the right to make their own laws and to elect their own officials, then it followed in pioneer logic that the people had the right to change or overrule them. When they were sufficiently aroused to do so, they were not inclined to waste time on fine points of procedure or to show much deference to a protesting officer of the law.” Perhaps the best known cases of this kind occurred in San Francisco.

     Most of San Francisco’s laws during the late 1840s and early 1850s were developed through popular assemblies of citizens. Governmental law enforcement was instituted early, however, so anyone accused of a crime had to be arrested by the publicly employed sheriff and waited for a trial in the next Court of Sessions, which met every two months at the county seat. Lawyers often got trials delayed, and because jail facilities were scarce or nonexistent “postponements almost always meant that the accused would be discharged if he had not escaped first.” Witnesses had to pay their own expenses; and given the delays, many did not wait for the trial. With the swelling of San Francisco’s population during the gold rush, things began to get out of hand. In Valentine’s words:

     As they became increasingly harassed by crime and arson, San Franciscans became more and more ready to sacrifice legal procedure for elementary justice and security. The situation was becoming worse, not better, as new criminals moved in and more and larger fires swept across the city. The better citizens were torn between two fears: fear that nothing short of popular tribunals could cope with crime and fear that popular tribunals would degenerate into lynching mobs, led by the worst elements in town. . . .

     Many of the most respectable citizens believed that the only compromise between rampant crime and rampant lynching was an organized, stable popular tribunal that could be controlled by the better elements in the city. . . .

     San Franciscans wanted something better than slapdash justice, whether legal or popular, but above all they wanted crime reduced.

     The city’s press was urging drastic action by early 1849, but the citizens of San Francisco held back until February of 1851.

     On February 19, 1851, the owner of a San Francisco clothing store was robbed and beaten. The sheriff arrested two men and charged them. A large number of people gathered the next day before the city offices, demanding quick action against the accused. Some speakers advocated an immediate hanging, but one, William T. Coleman, prevailed. He told public officials,

     We will not leave it to the courts. The people here have no confidence in your promises, and unfortunately they have no confidence in the execution of the law by its officers. Matters have gone too far! I propose that the people here present form themselves into a court. . .that the prisoners be brought before it. That testimony be taken, counsel on each side allotted. . .if the prisoners be found innocent let them be discharged, but if guilty let them be hung. . . . We don’t want a mob! We won’t have a mob! Let us organize as becomes men!

     A committee of fourteen prominent citizens, including Coleman, was chosen to take charge of the case. The legal authorities were invited to participate but declined, although they raised no resistance and handed over the prisoners. The committee impaneled a jury and appointed three judges and a clerk. Two “highly regarded” lawyers were appointed to represent the prisoners; Coleman acted as prosecutor. After hearing the case, the jury voted nine guilty and three for acquittal. The prisoners were turned back over to the authorities. The impetus for a vigilante organization was in place, however.

     Plainly, had San Francisco’s “authorities” been trustworthy and diligent, Coleman’s call for an alternative would not have resonated with the public. Compare this to today’s situation in America’s riot-torn cities...and in other places where agitators are permitted to harass private citizens dining, shopping, or going peaceably about their business.

---

     If the law is too mild, private vengeance comes in. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Compensation”

     While no institution – especially no “public” institution – is wholly trustworthy and perfectly diligent, America’s police forces, on net balance, are an asset to the maintenance of public order, and of justice as Americans generally understand it. Private citizens are rightfully outraged, both at the “orders from above” that have handcuffed the police in dealing with looters and rioters, and at attacks on the police such as occurred in Philadelphia. Both varieties of outrage testify to a developing urge among decent Americans to act as law enforcers, especially in those districts where the police are unable or unwilling to do so.

     If modern vigilance committees should arise, I have no doubt that our “public officials” will condemn them – “Private justice!” they will shriek — and issue orders to the police that they be suppressed. Whether the police will comply with such orders, given those selfsame “public officials’” unwillingness to allow them to enforce the laws that “protect” life and property, I cannot predict. But we may be sure of one thing at least: questions vital to the conception of justice itself will be raised and hotly discussed:

For whose benefit is there law?
Who owns it?

     With that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers.

Comedy Is Hard...

     “I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.” – Will Rogers

     Commentary is easy, especially when comment is essentially unnecessary. Governments and those who “run” them, provide a lot of material for us to laugh at, though the laughs are usually quite hollow. In particular, politicians never, ever accept responsibility for anything that goes wrong because of their policies...but watch your step, private sector! The least little bobble and we’ll nationalize you in the “public interest!” Venezuelans could testify to the consequences.

     The syndrome is not confined to our South American neighbors. Have a case in point:

     After facing widespread criticism for being out of town campaigning for president during the previous weekend's blackout in Manhattan, de Blasio called a rare early-morning press conference to discuss his complaints over Con Ed's handling of the recent outages.

     De Blasio said he was “extremely disappointed” with Con Ed, echoing recent remarks by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and saying the city still didn’t have adequate answers about what caused a power outage in midtown Manhattan last week....

     “It’s very clear we have to question whether Con Ed as a structure now can do the job going forward or whether we need to do an entirely different approach,” de Blasio continued.

     De Blasio raised the possibility of a public takeover of the utility without fully committing to the idea, insisting that an independent investigation must take place first.

     This...person, whom Big Apple voters have given the mayoralty of The Once Greatest City In The World, has turned it into an impoverished hellhole in which violent crime has exploded and rioters own the streets. Now he seeks to take over a private company that has served the region faithfully and well for many decades – a company whose progenitor was founded by Thomas Edison himself. Who on Earth, given the record of nationalized and municipalized utilities here and elsewhere, would imagine that de Blasio and the cronies he’d put in charge of New York’s electric service would do a better job?

     We’ve known de Blasio is a Marxist ideologue since he first ran for mayor. His deeds since then have made it plain that he’s a Stalin wannabe, as well. When will New Yorkers regain their senses and eject him from office?

     Somehow I don’t think even Will Rogers could get any laughs with this.

     “Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.” -- Will Rogers

Indicting The Ism

     I had no idea that Vlad is still blogging. Here’s the Sunday punch from his comments on the recent Netflix production about Stalin’s Holodomor, Mr. Jones:

     The Ukrainian genocide, you would think from the film, was not the fault of communism. No of course not. It was the fault of a hedonistic, corrupt, megalomaniac, sex fiend, white-male, American who worked for the New York Times and perhaps Stalin who was not doing things right. ‘Imperfect’ let’s say.

     What they do not tell you, is that it is Communism that did this Genocide.

     That Stalin was a good communist in the way that Mohammad was a good Muslim and Dr. Mengele was a good Nazi. They were all excellent representations of the ideology they believed in and acted on.

     Contemporary socialists and communists will froth at the mouth upon reading or hearing such statements. They’re determined to protect their favored ism against logical or moral assaults. The mere suggestion that socialism requires a Stalin – that it elevates a Stalin to power as surely as the Sun will rise in the east this morning – is enough to provoke them to violence. So they bellow “That wasn’t real socialism!” or “Socialism works, it was the fault of the men in power!” Absolutely anything rather than admit that their ism brings about the same consequences each and every time it’s tried.

     All that having been said, there is a problem with trying to indict a system of belief in isolation from the conduct of the men who will govern it. For there is no scheme of government that eliminates the requirement for men – fallible men, men with individual drives, interests, and agendas – to impose and administer it upon the rest of us.

     Indeed, that’s the Joker in the deck of government itself.

---

     I know, I know: the above sounds like a brief for anarchism. And in truth, I was once inclined to look favorably, even longingly upon anarchism. Governmental terrors and predations constitute a pretty good argument that the whole idea of government – i.e., that some men should wield power over others – is inherently faulty. Quoth Allan Sherman:

     Every government is a geejy bird.
     The geejy bird is a strange creature; it flies only once in its lifetime, but that flight is a spectacle to behold. The geejy bird appears suddenly, standing on a limb, young, elegant, proud, and respectable. Surveying the horizon, it spreads its majestic wings and swoops upward in a wide graceful curve, with magnificent wing flappings, and loud glory whoops. When it reaches maximum altitude, it begins its elegant descent, an ever narrowing spiral. It makes smaller and smaller circles in the sky until, suddenly and mysteriously, it vanishes through its own asshole.
     No one knows where geejy birds go—probably back where they came from. Unfortunately, when they go, they take us along. We are all subjects of one geejy bird or another; we are born and live and die during one of these mad flights. To be born early in the flight is, at least, exciting; the air sparkles with hopes and dreams, and there are worthwhile things to be done. To board the flight in the soaring stage is next best; there is a fresh wind and a feel of strong wings and a dizzying view of the world.
     But what about those of us who are born near the end of the flight? We can’t jump off; the fall would be fatal. In vain we scream, “Turn around, great geejy bird! Turn back in thy flight!” Too late. There is nothing to do but make the best of it. We snap to attention, salute, and begin to sing our stirring anthem. “God Bless Our Geejy Bird!” Together we bravely enter the turd tunnel to oblivion.
     Even the friendliest geejy birds share certain boorish instincts with the disgusting ones. The species is fundamentally predatory. Thus, over a 200-year period the American geejy bird slowly gobbled up all the power it could eat, until it began to look suspiciously like the Louis XIV geejy bird.
     Sometimes I get so mad at government, I could almost become an anarchist—but not quite. In my opinion, anarchy is nothing more than the embryo of government—an inadvertent way to hatch another geejy bird, and there are enough geejy birds already.

     Yes. Despite my quondam flirtation with anarchism, it’s as flawed as any other scheme of social organization. Its instability gives birth to governments, and as Allan Sherman has said, there are enough governments already.

     But my larger point is about the isms promulgated by theorists of all sorts. None of them can be rendered immune to the dynamic of power. Friedrich Hayek’s analysis of this phenomenon in The Road to Serfdom remains unrefuted – probably irrefutable on this side of the Second Coming.

     Joh Gall, in his neglected book Systemantics, made a powerful case that systems of all sorts operate in failure mode most of the time. But why would men avid for power want to preside over a failing system? The key to harmonizing this insight with Hayek’s is the realization that the standards of the rulers are not those of the ruled.

     By the standards of the ruler, the system might be working fabulously. After all, it gives him what he wants: power, pelf, prestige, and perquisites. That those things are taken from others by force needn’t trouble him, as long as he remains in power. As for what would come next, he prefers to leave future problems to future solvers and solutions.

     By the standards of the ruled, the system has defaulted on its promises to him. Perhaps it promised him freedom. Yet laws and regulations strangle him even in his most private affairs. Perhaps it promised him economic security. Yet the State’s consumption of his earnings bites more deeply with every passing year, to say nothing of the instability of his income in a regime where the very meanings of the words in which the laws are written can be reversed by men in black robes. Or perhaps it promised him safety. Yet the police are limp in the face of ever-increasing, ever-escalating street crime, and the nation’s borders are colander-porous.

     No matter what ism supposedly animates those in the corridors of power, over time the system will be perverted toward the satisfaction of the private interests of the rulers, and be damned to what they may have promised the ruled. Yes, Gentle Reader: constitutionalism as well. The sole difference among them is how long it will take for tyrants to rise to the levers of power.

---

     God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all and always well-informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. – Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Smith, shortly after Shay’s Rebellion in New England.

     The ism is inseparable from the men who preside over it – and men cannot be trusted with power. But when an ism is founded on the use of power to fetter and dispossess some to slake the grievances of others, it starts life perverse and evil. That automatically refutes every collectivism ever proposed: fascism, socialism, communism, every variety of theocracy, and every other scheme put forth by some utopian theorist who’s had a vision in his cave. They are evil ab initio.

     The cure is revolution...yet as has been observed all too frequently, the typical revolution doesn’t make matters better, but worse:

     Those who have seized power, even for the noblest of motives soon persuade themselves that there are good reasons for not relinquishing it. This is particularly likely to happen if they believe themselves to represent some immensely important cause. They will feel that their opponents are ignorant and perverse; before long they will come to hate them...The important thing is to keep their power, not to use it as a means to an eventual paradise. And so what were means become ends, and the original ends are forgotten except on Sundays. – Bertrand Russell

     Feel free to argue with me. But don’t imagine that I’ll allow you to avoid defining your terms and your standards. I’m funny that way.

When Smart People Say Foolish Things

     “I do not need protecting,” she said. “I can take care of myself.”
     “You are a fine fencer,” I said. “Unfortunately, life is more complicated than a fair dueling situation.”
     “I know that. I'm not a child. But—”
     “ 'But' nothing! He did the same thing I'd do if you were mine. He's protecting himself as well as you. I'm surprised he let Brand know about you. He's going to be damned mad that I found out.” Her head jerked and she stared at me, eyes wide.
     “But you wouldn't do anything to hurt us,” she said. “We-we're related.”
     “How the hell do you know why I'm here or what I'm thinking?” I said. “You might have just stuck both your necks in nooses!”
     “You are joking, aren't you?” she said, slowly raising her left hand between us.
     “I don't know,” I said. “I need not be-and I wouldn't be talking about it if I did have something rotten in mind, would I?”
     “No... I guess not,” she said.
     “I am going to tell you something Benedict should have told you long ago,” I said. “Never trust a relative. It is far worse than trusting strangers. With a stranger there is a possibility that you might be safe.”
     “You really mean that, don't you?”
     “Yes.”
     “Yourself included?”
     I smiled. “Of course it does not apply to me. I am the soul of honor, kindness, mercy, and goodness. Trust me in all things.”

     [Roger Zelazny. The Guns Of Avalon]

     The above, from one of Zelazny’s justly famous Amber novels, nicely captures the internecine quarrels of the royal family of that realm. Its ruler, Oberon, has gone missing and is presumed dead. Every one of his sons and daughters wants the crown. Every one of them is willing to murder all the others to get it. For any one of them to trust any other would be an act of insanity – and therefore, trust among them is nonexistent. That’s the perspective from which Corwin, one of Amber’s princes and the narrator in the above, is speaking to his niece Dara, whom he’s only just met.

     The absence of trust makes room for the operation of other qualities that trust can – and sometimes does – obscure. One of them is dispassionate analysis.

---

     As long as I’m in a quoting mood, here’s another:

     "Excuse me, Miss," Stromberg's voice boomed out. Teresza jerked her head around to find the sociologist and most of the class staring straight at her. "Yes, you who're holding Mr. Morelon's hand in a grip of steel." A titter ran through the hall. Teresza flushed. "Do you have an opinion on the subject?"
     "Uh, no, Professor." Teresza rose and gathered her thoughts as best she could. "I was just surprised to hear that they had all that junk."
     Stromberg smiled broadly. "Everyone is, Miss...?"
     "Chistyakowski."...
     "Well, you may take my word for it, Miss. In 2061, thirty-four percent of the economy of the richest sector, which was called the United States, was devoted to entertainment and diversions. As a category, that outstripped the second largest sector, medical services, by more than two to one. If our histories are accurate, its products were consumed with an unbelievable avidity, and its customers were perpetually hungry for more." He leaned forward over his lectern and peered hard at her. "Would you care to venture an opinion as to why they wanted so many frivolities and distractions?"
     Two hundred pairs of eyes pressed against her as she groped for a response. She squeezed Armand's hand and tried to think.
     The household she and her father kept was simple and modest. They had all they needed and a handful of minor luxuries, but no one would have thought their lifestyle lavish. Yet she couldn't think of anyone she knew whose surroundings were substantially more opulent. Not even the Morelons, whose wealth would have sufficed to buy the Gallatin campus ten or twenty times over.
     But why would anyone want to be surrounded by all that junk in the first place?
     "Professor," she said slowly, "I can't help asking the question the other way around. We could have all that stuff if we wanted it, couldn't we?"
     Stromberg grinned suggestively. "Indeed we could, Miss."
     "So why don't we?"

     Teresza’s question is the question of the day. Indeed, it’s the question of our nation and our era. And apparently the answer to it, though in plain sight, is being ignored or overlooked by some very bright and articulate people.

---

     The second citation above concerns the colony world of Hope, which is utterly without governments of any description. Thus, it lacks the overheads subjugation by a government imposes: laws, regulations, armies, police forces, other agents and agencies, and the taxes required to support them. The absence of those overheads has allowed the colonists to advance from pretechnological subsistence to roughly the technological-economic status of the United States in 1960 in only twelve hundred years – and that despite an ecology that’s lethally hostile to Earth-derived life. The colonists, descendants of a group of anarchist exiles who called themselves Spoonerites, like their ungoverned status just fine. Hope society emerged as family-oriented.

     That was also American society in 1960. While certain technologies were still maturing in 1960, all the elements were present to give swift rise to every one of the fripperies of today. Yet there was no pressure for those things. Rather, American adults concentrated on making a living, maintaining peaceful and orderly households and communities, and producing and raising their children.

     America’s markets in 1960 were appreciably freer than they are today. The six decades since have seen an explosion of coercive laws and regulations, nearly always under the overt rationale of “protecting the consumer.” The emergence of virtually all the luxury consumer-non-durable goods of today followed the imposition of all those laws and regulations, and – of course – the explosion in taxation that accompanied them.

     The federal government soon discovered that taxation was not enough to fund its new voracity. The Laffer Effect defeated rates above a certain revenue-optimum level. The sole alternative was to borrow. The Federal Reserve system guaranteed that large-scale federal borrowing would result in inflation.

     The accelerating rise in the cost of living compelled Americans to embrace the two-income family. For many, overtime labor became the way of survival. The repercussions were not long in coming. The reduction in the amount of time and energy that went to family and community matters was felt almost immediately. Children needed something to substitute for the attention of their parents, and parents needed something to distract their children from their parents’ obsessive concern with expenses, debt, and their futures.

     The proliferation of consumer fripperies was a response to these things, not the cause of them.

---

     Some very smart people, quite as concerned with the deterioration of our families and neighborhoods as I, have assailed our markets as “too efficient.” The late Robert Nisbet, a towering intellect, once wrote that “our markets may be too efficient for life on a human scale.” I have no doubt that he was sincere. Nevertheless, the correlation between the explosion in luxury consumer non-durables fooled him as it has fooled others.

     You’ll see a lot of opinion writing that echoes Nisbet these days. Most of it is by self-described conservatives. Here’s a recent sample. Yet there’s nothing conservative about measures that enable the advancement of government power and intrusion. Objections to the freely chosen behavior of Americans in the American marketplace can only empower the statists among us. Rather, we should be looking at reducing the size and intrusiveness of our 88,000 governments – federal, state, county, municipal, and school district – back to pre-World War I levels.

     Would that guarantee a return to the family-oriented society of those years? No, it would not. There are no guarantees in sociodynamics. But it would remove the propellants that powered our flight from it. Moreover, it would restore a great part of the freedom Americans once enjoyed: an autonomy untroubled by fears of not being able to meet present or future bills. It would reinstitute conditions in which Americans’ paramount attention could go to things close to home, rather than to a rat race toward a potentially illusory security.

     I’ll let Professor Arne Stromberg, holder of the Edmond Genet Chair in Sociology at Gallatin University, the foremost center of higher learning on Alta, the northern continent of Hope, close this tirade:

     “Families are the fundamental building blocks of a stable society. Extended families—clans—are the best conceivable environment for the rearing of children, the perpetuation of a commercial forte, and the germination of new families and their ventures. A clan like yours, Miss Albermayer, conserves a brilliant genetic line and a priceless medical specialty at the same time. A clan like yours, Mr. Morelon, makes possible a benign agricultural empire and produces natural leaders one after another while connecting Hope to its most distant origins. And all healthy families, which cherish life and bind their members to one another in unembarrassed love, can find far more to occupy and amuse them than they need."
     Teresza's mind lit with memories of the way the Morelons had enfolded her and made her one of them. No day could have been long enough for all they had to say and do and share with one another.
     "When Earth's regard for families and their most fundamental function deteriorated, her people ceased to enjoy the sorts of ties that had held them together throughout the history of Man. Without families, and especially without children, they groped for other things to fill their time, whether to give them a sense of purpose, or to distract them from the waning of their lives. Some invested themselves in industry or commerce, but without the sense of the family line to be built up and made prominent, those things failed to satisfy. Others immersed themselves in games, toys, fripperies, and increasingly bizarre forms of entertainment, which palled on them even faster. Still others made a fetish out of sex; there was a substantial sex industry on Earth, though it tended to operate in the shadows and was seldom openly discussed. They needed emotion and substance, but all they could contrive was sensation and novelty, and they pumped an ever greater share of their effort and wealth into seeking them. That's my thesis, for what it's worth."
     The hall was silent. Teresza peered furtively at the faces of the students nearest her. The majority of them were wet with tears.
     "For us," Stromberg said, "it's enough that we're happy, secure, and free. We don't really need to know definitively why our statist forebears traveled a path so different from our own. But it's among the great mysteries of social science, and worth thinking about from time to time even in isolation."

     Indeed it is.

Designing For Failure

     Back in the late Sixties and Early Seventies, when the Space Shuttles were under development, the NASA teams at work on them operated under a peculiar belief. In short, they assumed that testing subassemblies in isolation was unnecessary – that the only level of testing required would be performed upon the fully assembled and integrated Shuttle. This gave rise to a number of calamities, including five major fires. Stubbornness about this approach, which NASA called “Success By Design,” was one of the reasons the Shuttle program took so long to complete.

     There’s information here. How often, really, do human efforts work on the first try? I’ve known a lot of engineers, and I don’t think even one of them would say “Most of them.” (I do know one fellow who claims it’s possible to write software of arbitrary complexity that will work on the first try, but as far as I know he hasn’t yet succeeded at it.)

     Assuming success, even at low levels of component design and fabrication, is a risky proposition. The more components the final product will embed, the riskier it is. A smart engineer tests every element that’s testable, long before he attempts to integrate it with any other element. Sometimes he’ll build special test circuits, good for nothing but testing his subassembly, to assure himself that he’s “in the ballpark” at the very least.

     In other words, a smart, humble engineer assumes not success but failure. Smart, humble people in every walk of life do the same. That’s because they know their limitations.

---

     Not every walk of life is populated by people who are simultaneously smart enough and humble enough to admit that they have limitations. The one that sticks out most conspicuously is, of course, the world of politics and government.

     Meddling with the lives of others through lawmaking is the most dangerous of all occupations. Very few Acts of any legislature conduce to the ends that were proposed for them a priori. Unexpected costs and unintended consequences abound. Yet you will seldom hear anyone in government, whether elected or appointed, use the Three Little Words that admit to one’s human fallibility: “I was wrong.” You’re more likely to meet a virgin hooker.

     Perhaps we should have expected this all along. The pursuit of political power requires an outsized ego. Such persons are loath to admit to any shortcoming, especially in their intellects or knowledge. They can fake humility when it’s politically expedient, but I wouldn’t bet the mortgage money on ever seeing them practice it.

     Yet a great many Americans still look to the Omnipotent State as the answer to all “problems.” (Here, “problem” should be understood to mean “something that displeases me” to a private citizen, and “something I can base a campaign on” to a politician.) Few are those who understand that what many regard as “problems” are conditions that cannot be “solved” except at an unacceptable cost. Hearken to H. L. Mencken on a subject no politician would say we must tolerate as the least bad of the possible evils, prostitution:

     There is no half-baked ecclesiastic, bawling in his galvanized-iron temple on a suburban lot, who doesn’t know precisely how it ought to be dealt with. There is no fantoddish old suffragette, sworn to get her revenge on man, who hasn’t a sovereign remedy for it. There is not a shyster of a district attorney, ambitious for higher office, who doesn’t offer to dispose of it in a few weeks, given only enough help from the city editors. And yet, by the same token, there is not a man who has honestly studied it and pondered it, bringing sound information to the business, and understanding of its inner difficulties and a clean and analytical mind, who doesn’t believe and hasn’t stated publicly that it is intrinsically and eternally insoluble. For example, Havelock Ellis. His remedy is simply a denial of all remedies. He admits that the disease is bad, but he shows that the medicine is infinitely worse, and so he proposes going back to the plain disease, and advocates bearing it with philosophy, as we bear colds in the head, marriage, the noises of the city, bad cooking and the certainty of death. Man is inherently vile—but he is never so vile as when he is trying to disguise and deny his vileness. No prostitute was ever so costly to a community as a prowling and obscene vice crusader, or as the dubious legislator or prosecuting officer who jumps at such swine pipe.

     If the politician can’t promise to “solve” your “problems” for you, what could he possibly offer you?

---

     We enter upon 2019 with the federal government divided once more. Many see this as unfortunate, and they could well be correct. But there’s a possibility – granted, not easily measured – that it could be a good one.

     Some things conservatives would dearly love to see are unlikely to get done. A sharp reduction in federal spending is highly unlikely. The dissolution of any Cabinet department, even the utterly useless albatrosses of Energy and Education, simply won’t happen. Few will be the initiatives for which the Trump Administration will secure the cooperation of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

     But many things that would eventuate in disaster are unlikely to get through Congress, as well. A divided Congress could be a barrier to many a big-government boondoggle. It could halt any major expansion of the administrative state, or any major increase in a federal program. The requirement, of course, is that the Republican-controlled Senate must “stand its ground” about such things. That hasn’t always been the case in the past.

     In this connection we must consider the ongoing partial federal-government shutdown as a blessing. No budget? No expansion of the budget, which is a phantasm anyway. No authorization of funds explicitly for the border wall? President Trump has the backing of the electorate, the military, and the Border Patrol, and could find what he needs in pockets of discretionary funding. There are possibilities for improving our foreign policy and our military posture, especially as regards our overseas military commitments, that a divided Congress would find difficult to obstruct.

     Just be braced for failure. For any initiative undertaken over the next two years, be ready with objective evaluation criteria and insist on sunsetting provisions. Remember how seldom any human undertaking succeeds on the first go-round. Let’s pray that President Trump remembers that, too.

Deserving Versus Entitled

     One of the mad fantasies of the post-World War II era is the notion that employees “deserve” an annual raise, irrespective of what they do, how well they do it, or how well the company is doing. Belief in this lunacy is so widespread, and is defended with such vitriol, that even persons who know better normally keep silent about it. But silence, as you know, is not my way.

     To say that you “deserve” something is identical to saying that you’ve “earned” it. But how does one earn more than the wage one has already agreed to accept for his labors? It seems inescapable that it’s a matter for negotiation with one’s employer. That explicit negotiations about it seldom occur these days doesn’t vitiate the argument.

     Earlier this year, President Trump announced that he planned to freeze the pay rates of federal workers other than those in the military. Yesterday he signed an executive order that does so. And of course, the Democrats, the government workers’ unions, and all their allies are up in arms. Their mouthpieces demand to know why federal bureaudrones can’t have the raises they “deserve.” Seldom does anyone challenge the embedded assumption.

     It’s entitlement syndrome from top to bottom: the attitude that because the employee is still “on the job,” he “should” get a raise regardless of any other consideration. Considering how seldom a federal employee actually leaves his job (retirement excepted), that amounts to a claim on a perpetually escalating salary just for remaining at one’s desk, other developments and considerations notwithstanding.

     We private sector types ought to know better. However, in my experience, few of us do.

---

     Some matters have always struck me as self-evident, a bit like the right to life. But nothing is self-evident to one with entitlement syndrome. Government employees, whose jobs are heavy with opulent benefits, tend toward the extreme of entitlement. Whether because of the incentives involved or more nebulous factors, this employment cohort displays a degree of arrogance about what it “deserves” that would get the lot of them fired from any non-union billet.

     The federal government is bankrupt. Massively insolvent. Unable to service its existing debt without incurring even more debt. An employer in that condition that blindly gives out raises would be regarded as corporately insane. Washington gets away with it through the evil magic of the Federal Reserve system.

     President Trump is not a career politician. As far as I know, he’s never worked for a government of any level. When he sees a huge and steadily increasing debt, he has the rational reaction of any private sector employer: cut costs. And employee salaries are always the biggest cost.

     What drives the spear home is that a great many federal employees are officially classified non-essential. It’s a designation I’d have hated to wear when I was working for wages. How can a “non-essential” employee be entitled to a raise as a matter of right? It makes approximately no sense...which, at least, is consistent with the degree of sense 90% of federal activity makes.

     Just now, those “non-essential” employees are on furlough due to the partial government shutdown. We in the private sector haven’t so much as hiccoughed over it, but of course the Democrats and the government workers’ unions are in a state of apoplexy over it. Clearly there’s a “problem” to be “solved” here, and as the Curmudgeon Emeritus to the World Wide Web it naturally falls to me to solve it. My prescription?

Ignore them.
They’re entitled to nothing.

     Happy New Year.

The Oldest Trick Redux

     During the confirmation hearings over then-Justice-nominee Brett Kavanaugh, I wrote this:

     One unverifiable allegation of misconduct from a dubious source hasn’t been enough to sink the Kavanaugh nomination. However, it was enough to delay proceedings, temporarily keeping Kavanaugh off the Court. The Democrats consider that a sufficient success to be worth repeating the tactic. And why shouldn’t they? Delay sufficiently prolonged is indistinguishable from defeat.

     Once again, the late, undervalued though immeasurably insightful C. Northcote Parkinson is on the case:

     The theory of ND [Negation by Delay] depends upon establishing a rough idea of what amount of delay will equal negation. If we suppose that a drowning man calls for help, evoking the reply ‘in due course,’ a judicious pause of five minutes may constitute, for all practical purposes, a negative response. Why? Because the delay is greater than the non-swimmer’s expectation of life....Delays are thus deliberately designed as a form of denial and are extended to cover the life-expectation of the person whose proposal is being pigeon-holed. Delay is the deadliest form of denial.

     As regards Judge Brett Kavanaugh, endless delay would be the Democrats’ grand prize, effectively preventing his nomination from ever receiving a vote. However, they can’t rely upon any single stroke toward delaying the vote as “conclusive.” They must mount a barrage of nebulous accusations, each of which can “justify” demands for further investigation, negotiations over the terms of testimony, and the like. This will ensure that when the steam has bled out of the current “controversy” there are other shots in the magazine, ready to be fired.

     It really is the oldest trick in the book. Don’t say “no,” outright; that sounds stubborn, unpleasant. Say “Just wait a minute,” and keep saying it until your adversary throws up his hands and walks away. Then you can claim the field by default.

     It’s shocking how many people have to be told that, rather than grasping it intuitively. But “the trick” is so widely applicable that it can crop up almost anywhere.

---

     Have a little more “denial by delay:”

     Josilyn Goodall is suing the Worcester School Committee, Superintendent Maureen Binienda, and the state Department of Children and Families after police entered her home, handcuffed her, and arrested her over what amounted to a paperwork dispute.

     According to the lawsuit, Goodall is seeking unspecified compensatory damages for the violation of her Constitutional rights and for the “mental pain and suffering” inflicted upon her and her son.

     The lawsuit details Goodall’s multiple attempts to contact the Superintendent after filing paperwork in January saying she was going to homeschool her son. She said she never got a response to any of her phone calls or emails.

     In Massachusetts, parents who wish to homeschool their children must submit an education plan to the superintendent of the local school system for approval. However, according to Care and Protection of Charles (1987), the court case upon which homeschool legal precedent was established, the burden of proof is on the school to show that the homeschool program is insufficient.

     The lawsuit further alleges that the Worcester School Committee’s homeschool policy is unlawful, in that it requires students to continue attending public school until the education plan is approved. Charles allows for homeschooling to begin as soon as the plan has been submitted.

     [Emphases added by FWP.]

     State educrats are unanimously hostile to homeschooling, and not just in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Money and power are involved, and no one in any bureaucracy lets those things slip away without a fight. But the relevant court decisions, especially Pierce v. Society of Sisters, affirm the right of parents to determine who shall educate their children, regardless of educrats’ contentions to the contrary.

     So Massachusetts’ educrats adopted delaying tactics to prevent Josilyn Goodall from exercising her right to homeschool her son. They simply declined to issue the legally required approval or disapproval of her submitted education plan. Then they invoked one of the State’s most ominous weapons – intimidation by cop – to attempt to frighten Miss Goodall into returning her son to their “care.”

     What’s most angering about this case is how unlikely it is that any individual in the Massachusetts educracy will suffer even the slightest penalty for such terror tactics. That’s in the nature of delay as a form of denial. Those who practice that tactic can always plead that “we were overloaded and hadn’t managed to get to it yet” as an exculpation of their blatant malice.

     The Left is big on denial by delay, and getting bigger by the second.

---

     I have a good friend, an entirely respectable fellow who owns and operates a successful construction firm, who applied for a handgun permit more than three years ago. He hasn’t heard a single word from the police bureau responsible for acting on such applications over that period. At this point he’s ceased to expect that he ever will.

     New York State is hostile to the private ownership of weapons, as anyone familiar with our firearms laws will attest. But there’s that nasty Second Amendment to cope with, so the police can’t simply refuse a permit application. Neither can they arbitrarily reject one without giving a reason. So they practice denial by delay. Apparently there’s no countermeasure.

     Moreover, he who naively applies for a handgun permit here on Long Island will be told to expect a long delay. The delay usually cited to a new applicant is “at least eight months.” Why “eight months?” The “at least” part really means “you could be in the grave before we decide on your application,” so why bother to cite any particular interval at all?

     Without the permit, a New Yorker who dares to acquire a handgun is immediately a felon, regardless of what he might then do with it. Even keeping it locked in a safe in his home would be illegal under New York State law. Using it to defend himself or his spouse against an intruder would expose him to even worse legal hazards.

     Now read this story about a fearful young mother and the off-duty cop who aided her. That heartwarming encounter couldn’t happen in New York...but the home invasion that young mother feared is getting more commonplace every day.

---

     Ultimately the problem is one of accountability. Governments have many techniques by which to shield the individuals they employ from being held accountable for their misfeasances, their nonfeasances, and their malfeasances. As long as those techniques protect the guilty, denial by delay, along with many other specimens of government misbehavior, will flourish.

     What, then, must we do? I have no answers on this 363rd day of 2018. Do you?

Quickies: On Talking To Agents Of The Federal Government

     It’s been observed on several occasions, by persons with bigger readerships than mine, that talking to an FBI agent, or any other federal agent, is a risky business, because of the statute that makes lying to one of them a prosecutable offense. The implied best course is not to talk to them regardless of any importunings they might make or assurances they might offer. But this, too, is a bad idea if followed too literally. The evidence is made plain by the current foofaurauw over the prosecution of Michael Flynn.

     If the FBI wants to get you, it can do so by falsification of documents. That’s apparently what happened to Flynn. Moreover, remember that even if you’re acquitted, the government can make your defense cost you everything you own, including your reputation. Therefore, if you refuse to talk to a federal agent, you’re still vulnerable. Who, after all, will control what’s written about you and what you said in a “302” document filed later on?

     So it seems it’s necessary to “talk” to the FBI agent – but with conditions:

1. Be prepared to video-record the entire exchange.
2. Have at least one witness present – preferably a lawyer.
3. Answer every question with “No comment.”
4. Do not be lured into responding to the agent’s offhand statements, regardless of their substance.
5. Afterward, ensure the safety of the recording and make a handwritten record of the event in a bound journal.

     Would this safeguard you perfectly? It comes close...but the Omnipotent State has its ways. If it really wants to get you, it won’t stop there. Beware.

An Epic Tirade

     The following rant from comedian Owen Benjamin is too full of truth for me to excerpt or synopsize it:

     Allow me to repost a critical, eye-opening segment from Hans G. Schantz’s The Hidden Truth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Owen Benjamin grasps all that, and it’s made him furious. But how many American women, no matter how badly they secretly yearn to eschew careerism for the role of wife, mother, and homemaker, would dare to say so – or to agree with it among their female friends?

More on Fusion and Other Government Issues

Not nuclear, but GPS Fusion - the ones that attempted to throw the 2016 election by posting "Fake News" about Trump.

Here's a cry for Obama to "Let It Go". Your party lost - Get Over It.

Too many in government have been co-opted by the political part of it. I'm in agreement that it's time to Drain the Swamp - and, a large part of that is to reduce the size of these agencies. Trump has focused on a major reason the size of the bureaucracies have swelled - too many regulations. He's cut many of them, and should focus on reducing more.

If there is less work (in the form of enforcing regulations), there will be less need for many of the Swamp Creatures. When I refer to federal employees that way, I'm merely noting that some of them - not all - were hired as a way of paying off supporters with a cushy job.

As the President would say, "That's sad." And, it is. To place a person in a position that they, and everyone around them, know was meant primarily to provide what amounts to - in their case - as a type of welfare check (although, a gigantic one), undermines their dignity as a human being. They use their position, not to learn something useful, but to provide services for the person that put them there.

At this point, we have at least twice as many people as would be needed in the most optimistic appraisal - the number is likely 5 or more times the quantity necessary.

How can you get rid of them without pushback?

• Reduce the regs - their position can then be eliminated outright.
• Attrition - as people leave, don't replace their job.
• If the position is necessary, hire from outside, with someone you can trust.
• Eliminate the time off for union business - they can take care of it on their own time.
• Outsource - use temps for jobs not having access to sensitive information or areas.

But, the biggest part of this is the first. Eliminate positions.

The Whole "Trump is Crazy" Thing - I've been hearing a lot of this lately (perhaps more as Trump's "Wins" start to accelerate). Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, a man who has some knowledge of dealing with political maneuvering in the workplace, and the War of Words that is part of it, adds in his perspective.

FWIW, I think this guy has a realistic viewpoint on Trump and how he operates.

And, now, Just for FUN, here's some good ones - From Single Dad Laughing. If you don't check him out, you're missing one of the funniest sites on the web.

For all my friends with more than 2 kids. Bless you.

And, why do I think of Meryl Streep when I see this?

Actually, NOT true for me, but - a WHOLE lot of people I know are in this situation.