Liberty's Torch

Monday, August 10, 2020

Monday Maunderings

Hmm, only eleven days since the previous “assorted” piece? Should I? Shouldn’t I? Aaahhh, why not?

The Reportage Has Muted.

The disorder, vandalism, and violence have not:

Perhaps the Democrats’ strategists have warned their media annex that publicizing the rioting is proving harmful to the Democrats’ electoral prospects this November. However, on-the-scene citizen journalists are still collecting the evidence. Don’t let it slip past you.

Frontiers In Leftism.

Book burnings are often associated with theocracies and “bluenosed” communities. Whatever the convictions of the book burners, their intention is plain: they want to prevent the books they condemn from being read. Burning them is merely the most dramatic way to attain that end.

But others on the Left have other approaches:

Today, the Washington Post’s Sunday “Outlook” section ran a piece in which Lawrence Downes, formerly of the New York Times editorial board, boasts about feeding books by Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, and other conservative authors to worms. Downes says he purchases these books on sale from his public library. He then takes them home for “quarantine.” In this way, he prevents people who might want to buy and read the books from doing so.
For extra pleasure, Downes has taken to putting the books in a compost bin along with coffee grounds, potato and carrot peels, etc., and feeding the pages to worms. He seems to believe that doing so is different in nature from burning the books. He’s right. Taking into account the pleasure Downes gets and his desire to write about the experience, it’s sicker.

This...person is emblematic of the Left in our era. They know they can’t win arguments against the Right, because all the evidence and reasoning supports the Right’s positions. Their hope to prevail, therefore, lies in preventing the Right from being heard by any means necessary, including violence.

Yet they call us “fascists.” You could cut the irony with a knife.

Insisting On The First Freedom.

Governors in several states have attempted to ban or restrict religious gatherings, in flagrant contravention of the guarantees in the First Amendment. But some Christians aren’t sitting still for it:

I could only wish New York’s Christian communities would display equal courage and resolve. But what will come of this in the long run? Will the governors who have illegally attempted to restrict religious worship be penalized for it? Will they suffer any kind of rebuff? We shall see.

Buy Guns And Ammo...If You Can Find Any.

This will already be old news to some, but its relevance grows as election day approaches:

Democrats are prepared to burn the country to the ground rather than accept another loss to President Trump in November and are war-gaming doomsday scenarios in advance of the most important election in American history....
Democrats are contemplating secession and potential civil war as they game out possible scenarios for a closely contested election, according to a report by Ben Smith in a New York Times column Sunday.

Now, I happen to think an individual state has a perfect right to remove itself from the Union, should a sufficient percentage of its resident citizens concur. The Constitution formed the Union, and the Constitution is a contract among the states, as is made plain by Article VII:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

There was no disagreement at the time of the Founding that should a state decline to ratify the Constitution, it would retain its independent sovereignty, unsubordinated to the newborn federal government. That a state which decides that the Constitutional contract has been violated would have a right to retract its ratification seems implicit. (Let’s leave the little matter of the Late Unpleasantness to another time, shall we? Anyway, that particular disagreement was settled by force, a poor standard for Constitutional interpretation.)

So it’s at least conceivable that the legislatures of California, Oregon, and Washington would vote to secede. What then? Would the patriots in those states merely sit still? Would they relocate in a body? Or would they call for and receive federal intervention aimed, as during the Civil War, at reincorporating the breakaway states into the Union by force?

It would be...interesting, to say the very least. But remember the old Chinese curse about “interesting times.”

On The Educational Front.

With the government-run schools in total chaos, the teachers’ unions refusing to return to the classroom in the fall (but demanding to be paid nonetheless), online schooling allowing parents to “see into the classroom,” and parents discovering alternatives in homeschooling and private-school “pods” at a record rate, “educators” and those who support their hegemony over young minds are in a tizzy. I’ve run across two sobering stories at the edges of this tempest:

Thomas Jefferson’s one deplorable departure from good sense was his advocacy of mandatory government-run schooling for all young Americans. I wonder what he’d think of the above tales.

While this story isn’t specifically about education, it has substantial relevance to the Left’s agenda and how the government-run schools have been used to promote it:

     Sophie Lewis, a so-called feminist theorist who says she’s interested in “queer communism,” came right out and said it in an article published at openDemocracy: “In short, the pandemic is no time to forget about family abolition.” (Don’t bother clicking through to the article at that link. It’s a silly call for all of us to live in hippie communes.)
     Lewis goes on to quote fellow traveler Madeline Lane-McKinley, who tweeted in March: “Households are capitalism’s pressure cookers. This crisis will see a surge in housework – cleaning, cooking, caretaking, but also child abuse, molestation, intimate partner rape, psychological torture, and more.” (In communes there’s no housework or something.)
     Lewis’s thesis is basically that since we’ve been at home thanks to stay-at-home orders, it’s become crystal clear that the family needs to go.

Sometimes, Gentle Reader, they really do come right out and say it.

Against The Mask Madness.

This piece warmed the cockles of my heart. Someone gave this market owner a hard time about not demanding that all her customers be masked. I can’t add anything to it that would enhance its impact. Please read it.

The Left Doesn’t Want You To Arm Yourself.

This story, which could have ended much less pleasantly, makes that clear. Once again, I can add nothing to it. Please read it, and consider starting a preparedness group in your neighborhood.

What Has Become Of The U.S. Marine Corps?

Time was, the saying ran that “there are no atheists in foxholes.” Today, apparently only atheists are permitted to give lectures to Marines:

     The USMC scheduled an annual training for military lawyers earlier this month, at which the Battle of Gettysburg would be discussed. The instructor for one portion of that training was supposed to be Jay Lorenzen, an Air Force veteran who taught for 10 years at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
     Lorenzen’s biography, provided to the military lawyers in advance of the training, included references to Christianity, including his affiliation with Campus Crusade For Christ, now known as Cru, and a couple of religious-themed courses he teaches in his spare time. Several of those lawyers complained to Mikey Weinstein, who heads up a secular, anti-Christian group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, that Lorenzen was going to teach about religion.
     That allegation was false. It didn’t matter.
     Weinstein, himself an Air Force veteran, is adamantly opposed to any form of Christian expression within the military, and immediately contacted the USMC to voice his displeasure at Lorenzen’s scheduled appearance at the training, calling Lorenzen a “fundamentalist Christian extremist parachurch official.” Within 64 minutes, according to Weinstein, the USMC informed him that the event had been canceled. It was replaced with an instruction regarding systemic racism within the military.

This is only the most recent story of its kind. The deliberate exclusion of openly Christian instructors and commanders from the military has been going on for some time. Apparently the anti-Christian activists are more influential than I was aware.

Let’s leave aside for the moment that Lorenzen’s lecture was not to be about Christianity, but about the Battle of Gettysburg, an engagement of importance to military lawyers. The rise of anti-Christian activism within the military is more significant than many realize. Marines risk their lives in pursuit of our nation’s military objectives. The lawyers who sometimes must prosecute or defend them in the aftermath hold those lives in their hands. Yet they are being systematically shorn of support for the religion to which the great majority of them subscribe – the religion that underpins their ethical code and the legal code of this nation. How does this make any sense?

Does the Marine Corps still have chaplains?

That’s all for today, I think. The workmen will shortly be upon us, and I must make several necessary preparations. Until tomorrow, be well.

Sunday, August 9, 2020

Delicious wit.

H/t: The Burning Platform.

Pursuing The Heights...Or Scorning Them?

There are days I have to withhold myself from others. Not to do so would be dangerous – to the others, not to me. Such occasions are triggered by a variety of stimuli. Blame it on my Irish temper, if you like. It’s integral to me, and I’ve had no luck taming it.

Today was such a day. The stimulus was a couple of comments at another site which I will forbear to specify. It involved a conversation among writers, including several too cowardly to give their real names. In the course of that conversation, certain things were said that lit my boilers and turned the flame up to its maximum.

What was said that redlined my tachometer, you ask? First, this: that trying to make your novel as good as it can possibly be, as close to perfect as you can bring it, is a waste of the author’s time.

Need I explain why that flicked me on the raw?

No, I didn’t think so.

I’m a (retired) engineer. If there’s any characteristic that unites all engineers everywhere, it would be this one: We want our designs to be perfect.

I can’t bring myself to submit anything to anyone if I can still detect a flaw in it. I was that way as a working engineer, and I’m that way as a writer of fiction. I love my (imagined) readers too much to subject them to anything that isn’t the very best I can make it. But while that would be enough reason to strive for perfection, there’s more involved.

It involves my opinion of myself as a responsible artist. A responsible sculptor wouldn’t leave a few extraneous stone chips on his statue. A responsible painter wouldn’t fail to correct for errant brush strokes, as far as possible. A responsible musician wouldn’t fail to correct – or to redo entirely –a recording that was stippled with errors.

A responsible writer takes comparable pains. He reviews his work with a critical eye. If possible, he enlists others in the effort. He corrects any flaws he can detect before he presents his tale to his readership. To do less is to say “This doesn’t matter that much.”

But it does matter that much, damn it all! It will bear my name. It will be taken as representative of the larger body of my work. And if my readers can find fault with it, they’ll be that much less inclined to read other things I’ve written. Some subset of them will dismiss me as a second rate writer.

I can’t bear the thought, much less allow the reality. So I labor to the utmost to seine out any ambiguities of plot or viewpoint, any awkward phrasings, and (of course) any low-level errors of grammar, spelling, or punctuation that I can find in my manuscripts before I release them to the world. I regard it as an ethical obligation, to say nothing of the impact on the maintenance and enlargement of my readership.

But an unnamed commenter who goes by an anonymizing moniker has called it a waste of time. Perhaps his / her / its anonymity is for the best.

The above was bad enough. There was worse.

Another anonymous commenter at the aforementioned site said, in effect, that he / she / it didn’t want thematic content. If that’s not clear, here’s a paraphrase of the comment:

Stories with serious themes turn me off. I avoid books that I “should” read. I seek to escape reality for a while, nothing more.

Let’s see, now: A story that lacks a theme:

Could involve protagonists and antagonists that are morally indistinguishable;
Could ignore the nature and implications of sentience and causality;
Could award the palm of victory to an evil participant.

Why would anyone read such a thing? For the vampires and werewolves, the elves and wizards, the ray guns and rocket ships? It would have no connection to life as we know it: a world in which limited beings with individual abilities and motivations must strive against all manner of opposition to fulfill or defend their values, while simultaneously straining to respect the moral and ethical constraints our nature lays upon us. There would be no point to such a story. It would be akin to watching a wrestling match between unnamed, interchangeable contestants.

The notion is so offensive that words fail me. The lowest, cheapest hackwork fiction at least nods toward some sort of theme. Pick up any Harlequin Silhouette romance. The least engaging of them makes an effort to say something about the nature of our world and the people in it.

I must assume that the commenter cited above is completely unconscious of what makes a story worth his / her / its time, and is unaware of what he / she / it really enjoys about the tales he / she / it finds enjoyable.

There’s no risk to me in encountering such bilge, of course. I’ll do as I think best regardless of anyone’s contrary opinion. But younger writers, not yet completely formed and ready to fly, could be affected by such emissions. That disturbs me.

Writing fiction is a serious business. Whether or not he’s aware of it – whether or not he admits it to himself – what a writer writes will help to mold his readers’ diction, knowledge, attitudes, and convictions. He can’t avoid it. To be blasé about the quality and content of his work is shameful.

Yes, I know mine is a minor voice. But ought my sentiments to be dismissed, merely because I have a tiny readership?

Quickies: Concerning Facebook And Its “Community Standards”

Those who operate Facebook have repeatedly assured us that their “community standards,” and the enforcement thereof, are absolutely content-neutral. They must say this to avoid being reclassified from “content-neutral platform” to “publisher” – which would expose them to regulation. So we’ve heard it over and over.

BUT...

I had a Facebook account forcibly terminated despite having used it strictly as a promotional vehicle for my books – no sociopolitical nor economic commentary of any sort. I had another account forcibly terminated despite never having posted anything on it. In both cases, the reason given was "community standards." I know other persons on the political Right with similar stories to tell. There’s only one imaginable explanation.

We also have phenomena such as this:

If this is “content-neutral” enforcement of “community standards,” I’m King Philippe of Belgium. (For the record, I’m not King Philippe of Belgium.)

Those of you who persist in using Facebook, whatever your rationale, are helping to sustain its practices. Remember, you’re the product: Facebook sells your “eyeballs” to the advertisers whose revenues fuel it.

There are superior alternatives. Look into Minds.com as an alternative to Facebook. Twitter devotees should check out Gab.com as a preferred micro-blogging site. Stop supporting your own destroyers.

(I might be back later with something meatier, but for not quite 6:00 AM EDT, this seems sufficient.)

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Widening The Fault Lines

Divide et impera. -- Roman maxim.

They who seek power over you will attempt to set you and your neighbor against one another. Regardless of the reason for it – if any – division and conflict among private citizens are assets to the power-monger. Indeed, it might be the asset he values most.

It follows that if a power-monger should find a pre-existent crack that divides some Americans from others, he’ll seek to widen it. If he can, he’ll make it unbridgeable. Then he’ll do whatever it takes to cause us to focus on that gulf. Fear of “the Other” absorbs a great deal of the fearful one’s emotional energy. If exploited to the hilt, it can keep the fearful one from noticing the existence of other threats...or doing anything about them.

The crack in America on whose widening the Left has labored longest and hardest is, of course, the racial gap. Some of us are Caucasian; others are Negro; still others are Mongolian. As persons of Mongolian ancestry have integrated smoothly into American life, the Left has concentrated on intensifying the Caucasian / Negro divide. Our current sociopolitical chaos arose from those efforts, particularly the efforts of the Left’s media handmaidens.

But you already knew all that, didn’t you, Gentle Reader? What you’d like to know is what can be done about it. Well, so would I.

Many commentators have observed that to prefix the word justice with any modifier perverts the meaning of justice, at least as Westerners have traditionally employed the term. Thus, the term racial justice perverts justice in the direction of racial collectivism. Whereas justice is about the defense of the rights of the individual, racial justice is about the imposition of injustice upon individuals in supposed pursuit of “racial equality,” a collectivist notion that has no objective referent. As more and more Americans have come to understand this, the Left’s tacticians have modified their approach with an adroit linguistic substitution.

Quoth Zach Goldberg:

Countless articles have been published in recent weeks, often under the guise of straight news reporting, in which journalists take for granted the legitimacy of novel theories about race and identity. Such articles illustrate a prevailing new political morality on questions of race and justice that has taken power at the Times and Post—a worldview sometimes abbreviated as “wokeness” that combines the sensibilities of highly educated and hyperliberal white professionals with elements of Black nationalism and academic critical race theory. But the media’s embrace of “wokeness” did not begin in response to the death of George Floyd. This racial ideology first began to take hold at leading liberal media institutions years before the arrival of Donald Trump and, in fact, heavily influenced the journalistic response to the protest movements of recent years and their critique of American society.
Starting well before Donald Trump’s rise to power, while President Obama was still in office, terms like “microaggression” and “white privilege” were picked up by liberal journalists. These terms went from being obscure fragments of academic jargon to commonplace journalistic language in only a few years—a process that I document here in detail. During this same period, while exotic new phrases were entering the discourse, universally recognizable words like “racism” were being radically redefined. Along with the new language came ideas and beliefs animating a new moral-political framework to apply to public life and American society.

Longtime analysts of media manipulation will nod over this; it’s anything but news. However, Goldberg takes note of a critical lexical substitution that’s central to the Left’s current offensive against the American conception of justice:

One of the primary drivers behind the conceptual creep around racism is the idea that all observed disparities between different groups in a society are a product of bias. This view as well as its policy implications for any institution that takes it seriously are captured succinctly by one of the most influential voices in the racial consciousness industry, Atlantic magazine writer and author Ibram X. Kendi. In a line from his book Stamped from the Beginning, Kendi writes: “We have a hard time recognizing that racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large … When you truly believe that racial groups are equal, then you also believe that racial disparities must be the result of racial discrimination.” Kendi is saying that any evidence of uneven outcomes between groups—for example, Black people being underrepresented in a particular profession relative to other groups and their share of the overall population—is necessarily evidence of racism that should be remedied by discriminating against the non-Black groups. Yet this reasoning is intuitively appealing only when (in addition to ignoring the various nonwhite groups that outperform whites) it utilizes the very same racial categories that those like Kendi rightfully criticize for being arbitrarily or socially constructed (if statistically and politically convenient)....
For decades, the term “racial equality” was the ubiquitous framework for understanding and evaluating racial justice. This is now changing as "equality" gives way to newer concepts such as “racial equity,” which refers to the redistribution of resources from the supposedly privileged to the supposedly disadvantaged as a means to redress claimed discrimination. As Ibram Kendi puts it: "If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist ... The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." Thus the goal is no longer 'racial equality' or equal treatment under the law. It is, rather, the attainment of a state of the world in which all groups have equal outcomes—even if some are deliberately disadvantaged in the process. Until very recently, "racial equity" was a largely unfamiliar phrase only rarely featured in the pages of the major newspapers. But this has changed dramatically in the last few years. In 2013 “racial equity” constituted 0.000003% of all words in The New York Times. One year later, it was being used six times more frequently (0.00019%). And, by 2019, nearly 32 times more frequently (0.000096%). Remarkably, in The Washington Post, “racial equity” was not only being used 27 times more frequently in 2019 (0.00032%) than in 2013 (0.00012%), but it’s rate of usage actually surpassed that of “racial equality.”

Goldberg’s article is marvelous, a treasure trove of both data and astute analysis. It deserves to be read and savored in full. However, for me the passage cited above is the haymaker. It illustrates a fundamental and insoluble problem:

If American Negroes will not be satisfied with anything but “racial equity,” then given that the races are innately unequal, how can the racial tensions the Left has inflamed be assuaged?

That is the problem before Americans today.

It’s time for a little C. S. Lewis:

     No man who says I'm as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
     And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, lah-di-dah affectation. Here's a fellow who says he doesn't like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here's a man who hasn't turned on the jukebox — he's one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they'd be like me. They've no business to be different. It's undemocratic.”
     [From Screwtape Proposes A Toast]

As a Christian apologist and polemicist, Lewis was concerned with the attitudes, convictions, and actions of individuals. Yet his observation applies with equal validity to racial groups. Racial agitators claim that American blacks’ aggregate inferior social, political, and economic position is the result of being oppressed, marginalized, and held back by “whitey” and “white justice.” Were it not for that, we are invited to infer, American Negroes would be equally (i.e., proportionately) represented in all social, political, and economic categories. Never mind:

That American Negroes test a full standard deviation below American Caucasians on standard intelligence tests;
That American Negroes commit eight times as many felonies per capita as Caucasians;
That seven out of ten live births among American Negro females are out of wedlock: babies raised without fathers.

Whenever we might hear it and whoever might utter it, I’m as good as you, as Lewis notes, is always “a good, solid, resounding lie:”

I don't mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself.

A perfect characterization of those who demand “racial equity.”

For some years I’ve wondered how anything so obvious could be overlooked. Indeed, I overlooked it for much of my life. But “obvious” means “overlooked.” Indeed, it seems that the more unpleasant a fact, the more we strive to overlook it – and later on, when it bites us on the ass, we proclaim it “obvious.”

Well, when we have an immense media megaphone continuously blaring lies into our ears, and all manner of pontificators demanding that we accept those lies as absolute truths, never to be gainsaid on pain of personal destruction, resisting the pressure to do so can be supremely difficult. I have a lot of sympathy for those who’ve “overlooked” the facts in response to that pressure. But that doesn’t make it any less of an error...or any less destructive to the fabric of our Republic.

We must expect that the Left and the media will continue to pull at the racial fault lines that afflict us. It’s their best hope of reversing the pro-freedom currents that gained ascendancy with the rise of Donald Trump. But we don’t have to kowtow to them. With that, I’ll let Rod Dreher close this tirade:

     How can we fight it? Almost every single day I receive an e-mail or a message from somebody who says, “I agree with you, but I can’t say so, or I would risk losing my job.” I understand. But we are not powerless. In Live Not By Lies, I cite Solzhenitsyn:
     “We are not called upon to step out onto the square and shout out the truth, to say out loud what we think— this is scary, we are not ready,” he writes. “But let us at least refuse to say what we do not think!”
     For example, says Solzhenitsyn, a man who refuses to live by lies:

Will not say, write, affirm, or distribute anything that distorts the truth;
Will not go to a demonstration or participate in a collective action unless he truly believes in the cause;
Will not take part in a meeting in which the discussion is forced and no one can speak the truth;
Will not vote for a candidate or proposal he considers to be “dubious or unworthy;”
Will walk out of an event “as soon as he hears the speaker utter a lie, ideological drivel, or shameless propaganda;”
Will not support journalism that “distorts or hides the underlying facts”

     “This is by no means an exhaustive list of the possible and necessary ways of evading lies,” Solzhenitsyn writes. “But he who begins to cleanse himself will, with a cleansed eye, easily discern yet other opportunities.”

     We can do at least this. We can stop believing what these propagandists are telling us. We can refuse to hate ourselves, our neighbors, and our country, just because they want us to. And we can prepare ourselves for strife to come. Read Michael Vlahos. What our media have been doing is Othering. It’s not going to stop there. The history of the 20th century shows very well how effective mass media propaganda can be at stoking racial and ethnic hatred to serve the goals of those in power.

So moved and seconded. Who will say aye?

Huber who?

Think about what has already happened? From former Attorney General Jeff Session’s appointment of Utah Prosecutor John Huber to the current decision by Attorney General William Barr to appoint Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to investigate the malfeasance what has been done? Really, nothing at all. No one has been indicted.

"Russia Hoax: Are We All Being Played? Put Up Or Shut Up!" By Sara Carter, ZeroHedge, 8/7/20 (emphasis removed).

Signs of the times.

Barr doesn’t seem to realize the damage all of this has caused. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge nor understand the radicalization of Americans this is all causing. Take me, I’m your perfect description of a “sheeple”. I'm the female suburbanite. I used to respect government even with all its flaws. I used to respect authority and would have cooperated feverishly with any FBI agent that might ask something of me. I used to believe in our leaders while acknowledging their flaws, using the term “politics” to excuse their behaviors. I used to accept what I was told and hold my anger. No longer.
I now see the FBI as a terrorist organization, with decades of doing to American citizens of what they are now doing to Trump. I don’t buy into the refrain, 99% of agents are saints and would never do what Comey did. I now believe not only might they do that they are TRAINED to do that. If an FBI agent should ever show up at my door I would look at him or her as the worst agents of China, Russia or Osama bin Ladin. The LAST thing I would do is trust them to want the best for America. I ABSOLUTELY see them as evil and against law and order.
Why shouldn’t I? Barr and Wray are convincing me American intelligence agencies are allowed to breaks laws on a whim and KNOW they will NEVER be held accountable. As far as I’m concerned the American intelligence services are the worst travesty to be unleashed on humanity and should be dissolved. I NEVER was a radical, and now thanks to Barr and Wray, I have no choice.

Comment by Arctic Frost on "Russia Hoax: Are We All Being Played? Put Up Or Shut Up!" By Sara Carter, ZeroHedge, 8/7/20.

Friday, August 7, 2020

A Melancholy Tale

They say that all good things must end someday. -- Chad and Jeremy

The C.S.O. and I decided to do something yesterday that I wouldn’t have predicted even two weeks ago. That is: we decided to terminate our cable-TV service.

We’d had it for quite a while – nearly forty years. A great part of the reason is that I’m a massive New York Yankees fan, and she’s a die-hard New York Rangers fan. Going to games in person costs us more time, effort, and annoyance than the enjoyment we get from them, so we’ve preferred to watch them when they’re telecast.

But today we have the spectacle of millionaire athletes claiming to be “oppressed,” of their colleagues taking a knee during the national anthem, and of club owners and executives kowtowing to the Black Lives Matter crap. Baseball and ice hockey, the sports we watched to be free of our cares and the troubles of the world for just a couple of hours, had been politicized, and in the very worst way. We couldn’t enjoy them any more.

So I called our provider and terminated the TV service. The company representative asked why, and I told her. Her reaction was sad: “Well, we can’t do much about that.” I wasn’t about to argue.

I suppose there will be spinoff benefits. I’ll be saving about $100 per month. Also, we’ll have more time to work, more time to read, and more time to think. But those are the things we retreated into sports fandom to get away from for a little while.

Ironically, among the reasons sports are enjoyable to the fan are that:

We can grasp the rules of the game;
And they don’t change while it’s being played.

(Yeah, yeah, I know: the Pine Tar game. But that was an exceptional exception.) Compare the relative stability of the rules of pro sports to our current social and political turmoil.

As I write this, it occurs to me that there are probably others in the same boat: persons who have cable-TV subscriptions mainly if not exclusively to bring them sports telecasts. How many of them are wholly disgusted by what’s happened to pro sports? How many will elect to “tough it out” until sanity and decency return, and how many will “cut the cord” rather than endure it? If the latter are numerous enough, the cable-TV providers will take a lot of damage.

I’ve been “filling the gap” by watching snooker videos on YouTube. They’ve made me a big fan of Ronnie O’Sullivan. However, there aren’t all that many really good ones, and Beth finds them boring. Maybe we’ll start watching Australian rules football. Can you get that over the Internet?

Thursday, August 6, 2020

Like Willie Nelson,...

...I'm on the Road Again.

This time to Cleveland for family reasons.

The airport experience is different this time. Not that it's ever all that pleasant. But, this time, it's (naturally) worse.

The requirement to mask up starts at the elevator entrance to the airport, and is non-stop from there on. Some are more relaxed about it (Black people particularly favor the under the nose style), but most are wearing the masks without complaint. The funny thing is, when I went through TSA, they had me move the mask off my face, to verify that the ID matched the person. So, what I've long said - the masks hinder recognition of individuals. Short term - possibly OK; Long term - harmful for trust level of our society.
I ate lightly before leaving for the airport, and skipped my usual coffee while waiting for my flight. Sucks to be a vendor these days; look for them to bail on their leases if this continues much longer - or, to re-negotiate for much better terms.
Working in airports is tough; if you have to sit down when you do, good luck. There aren't enough seats near the shelves that accommodate laptops or other tech. I ended up balancing my laptop for the time it took to write this.
Either the Karens aren't flying much, or, in the weeks that we've been forced to wear the masks, people have gotten more relaxed about their non-use, in non-crowded situations.
Speaking of non-crowded - that's what airports are right now. A lot of old people (maybe they can't handle the driving?), a few business travelers, and some families. And, a few singles. Not very many people flying for fun trips. Again, not sustainable, if this continues. If one of the busiest airports - BWI - is near-empty, the airline industry is on shaky legs.

Using the Great Stories

Among the phenomena that irritate me most, in these days when everyone with a word processor and an Internet connection can call himself a writer, is the blatant theft of tales told by other, better writers. Such thefts aren’t always outright plagiarisms, though some of that takes place, too. More often, they take the form of setting and motif appropriations: the use of places and characters (or character categories) made famous by other writers in their best known, best loved works.

The targets for such appropriations are usually the very best fiction writers in the English language. Of course! If you’re going to steal, why limit yourself to what you could pilfer at a 7-11? So we see what are often called “imitations” of Heinlein, Asimov, Tolkien, Stephen King, and other great storytellers of years past: mediocre stories that exploit the creations of those writers’ imaginations.

Why would an aspiring writer do such a thing? Lack of imagination alone doesn’t strike me as a satisfactory explanation. No one wants to be known as an unimaginative petty thief, and the “serial numbers” on such a story can’t be adequately “filed off.” It seems more likely that the aspirant is entranced by the tales he chooses to mimic. He might be fully aware that he lacks the power to concoct something nearly as good, and has resolved to settle for some adulatory fingerpainting along the margins.

Deplorable and sad. Yet the notion of a “subcreation,” composed as a “homage” to the great work of another creator, has considerable legitimacy. It can be done in an acceptable way, and I’m here to tell you how to do it.

The prog-rock band Glass Hammer, headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee (is that enough doubled letters for you?), includes in its oeuvre works that constitute subcreations beneath the expansive umbrella provided by J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien’s fantasy has inspired a huge number of imitators, but few have been respectful enough to do what Steve Babb and Fred Schendel of Glass Hammer have done. In their CD Journey of the Dunadan, they make use of an “unexplored space” Tolkien left in his epic fantasy: the wanderings of Aragorn and his yearnings for Arwen Evenstar, daughter of Elrond Halfelven and fairest of all the children of the Eldar race. This tale weaves artfully among the threads of Tolkien’s well known adventure, in such a fashion that it enhances the greater saga without contradicting or distorting it.

That’s how it should be done. If a creator has left such an unexplored space, and if a story can be inserted into that space that neither violates nor distorts the original tale, it can stand as a valid subcreation with its own value. As the overwhelming majority of fantasies written since The Lord of the Rings borrow from it to some degree, Journey of the Dunadan constitutes a pattern to be followed by others equally respectful of Tolkien’s prerogatives.

There’s another way to exploit an earlier creation: the “what happened next?” approach. If the original creator completes his tale and leaves the future events in the characters’ lives open, a capable writer can take up the threads from there – once again, assuming he can do so without violating or distorting the original. The late Robert B. Parker, a mighty storyteller in his own right, did this in his novel Perchance to Dream, which Parker bills as a sequel to Raymond Chandler’s magnum opus The Big Sleep. Parker adapts himself smoothly to Chandler’s “L.A. noire” style and portrays detective Philip Marlowe in this follow-on adventure in a fashion Chandler would applaud. This sort of subcreation should only proceed with permission from the original creator (or his estate). If that can be secured, it’s a legitimate way to borrow from an earlier creator.

Finally, a subcreation can be rooted in the great classical and pre-classical legends, or in a story from the Bible. E. William Brown’s novels of Daniel Black make use of several mythologies: Nordic, Greek, and Egyptian. He combines elements from those sagas into a brand new epic set in a world like our own, yet unlike it. Brown’s “Midgard” is a place where magic actually works – indeed, it’s the dominant force in all of society, including the societies of the gods. The epic is so convoluted that I could hardly do it justice in a squib here, so take my word for it: Brown has concocted an original and intriguing alternate universe in which to exploit those myths. (And nobody will be suing him for his borrowings!)

If you’re going to reach into the Bible for some foundation stones, great care is required. You don’t want to offend anyone unintentionally; it wouldn’t be gentlemanly. As for risking God’s wrath, that’s even more serious. I’ve taken my fate in my hands on two occasions: my short stories Names and The Last Vigil. Two minor characters – one a complete fabrication, the other the Roman soldier Longinus who attended to Christ on the Cross – were my foci. As I could speak of them without contradicting or distorting the greatest story ever told, that of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and Redeemer of Mankind, I felt I could get away with it. (I’ll find out for certain in the afterlife.)

So: it can be done. Viewed apart from the attitude of the subcreator, the requirements are fairly simple. Yet in the final analysis it is the subcreator’s attitude that matters most. He must respect the earlier tale as something over which he has no rights whatsoever. Moreover, he must respect its creator in the fullest sense: as one who, having brought something original and striking into the world, deserves to be shown homage for it. He must not mock or deride that earlier artist with an attitude of “I’ll show him how it’s done.”

Keep this in mind should you elect to travel the road of subcreation.

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Yaroo! A black, drug-addicted felon has been taken from us.

In reality it’s massive [U.S.] war criminality, wars of aggression that killed, maimed and uprooted millions of people in other countries. Not that it caused as much of a stir domestically as the death of Floyd but there you have it, the order of priorities of the American people and their supposed leaders. During the Vietnam war a common chant was “Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?”. This is true for the Clintons, Obama, Albright and all the rest of them yet somehow they still have their fans. They’re past their expiration dates yet are still kicking around since the Dem party is sclerotic with no new blood, no new ideas, just the same old parasites. Their presidential candidate is way past retirement age and has been obviously faltering in public. This is their champion, a lifelong mediocrity who is entering senility? US no longer has any wind in its sails.^[1]

Anonymous here calling attention to a disparity in the reaction to overseas mass killing and one ambiguous death at home. 500+K Syrian civilian deaths and chicken**** U.S. sanctions imposed on that much aggrieved nation do not even register on the national political radar. Not that reason or proportionality have any bearing on anything in our national life, determined as "we" are to piss it all away.

Also, characterizing Biden as "a lifelong mediocrity who is entering senility" is a bullseye, not that any cupcake/gynohysteric/liberal/prog/commie will allow themselves to notice. A liberal friend recently emphatically observed that Trump is "dangerous" as though someone with Alzheimers with access to the nuclear "football" would not be. But such people see no further than their next pilates class.

Notes
^[1] Comment by Anonymous on "Democratic Party Boosters Have Little to Offer. Few want to return to Obama or Clinton." By Philip Giraldi, The Unz Review, 8/1/20 (emphasis added).

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

"He's a Good Boy - He Goes to Church Every Sunday"

Those words, in the title, have been uttered by almost every mother/grandmother whose child has been arrested for a felony. After a time, having heard that cry from family of students I KNEW to be violent thugs, I'd learned that the words had a different meaning to the grieving family than what they conveyed to the rest of us.

That phrase meant:

This must be a mistake/frame by an evil and corrupt justice system.
I've put my whole being into the belief that I was making the right decisions. Don't tell me I wasted my whole life.
I made decisions based on what experts told me. I supported his self-esteem, put him into sports, gave grown men access to him, so he could replace his father (but fathers are truly irreplaceable).
I took him to church. Thought I lived a different life the other 6 days, that should have been enough.

To their families, the only face-saving answer is that the system is out to GET innocent people. It cannot be that I wasted my life.

Likewise, for the BLM activists, and those that have put their lives on hold to support them, it cannot be that their actions are causing LOSS of support among the Non-Woke.

For the AntiFa, and their MANY Woke supporters, it cannot be that "The Cause" for which they have destroyed any hope of a Normal life - family, secure finances, education that is actually useful - is, indeed, a "Lost Cause".

I haven't checked it out, but I suspect that a significant portion of those Southerners who doggedly pursued remembrance of the "Lost Cause" of their time were the single women. Those who would normally have married and had families. Those who, due to the massive numbers that died in the war they initiated, never were able to form a Normal life.

They COULD have blamed themselves, for failing prey to the hucksters of the Confederacy, but - come on! Does anyone ever blame themselves? Or, do they deflect that blame to their 'enemies'?

The same will happen to the Loyalists of the Woke Cause - they will fade away. Oh, they will meet, regularly at first, then, eventually, yearly, to commemorate their Shining Moment in the Revolutionary Sun.

Think I'm deluded? Check out this anniversary celebration, and look at the size of the crowd online. (View it in YouTube - at the time I linked this, only a pitiful 636 views). Other videos commemorating the events 50th anniversary are similarly poorly viewed.

That's a tell - on such an important anniversary, with no travel expenses, and only a few minutes needed to participate - The Kent State deaths couldn't even manage to get ONE THOUSAND people to open their laptops to play along.

Baby, the 60s are OVER!

The Leftist Protests are a dying industry. The participants are:

Unemployed "Studies" majors (Gee, I wonder why they're unemployed?)
Bitter old women (Jane Fonda, Ashley Judd, Bette Midler, Gloria Steinem, your ex-wife, et al)
The soy-boys who want to pretend they are Real Men
Blacks who've bought into the idea that the reason their lives turned out badly was Other People (White/Jewish/KKK), and not their own actions
People belonging to "religious" institutions that are shrinking faster than Joe Biden's brain
The Leftist Industrial Complex

Schools/Universities
Leftist Churches
Government workers
Social Workers, Activists, Community Organizers, and other Leeches on the Poor
News Media, particularly the dying dead tree/network types
Those connected with the traditional publishing industry
Human Resources and other staff departments in large companies
Hollywood

NONE of them are in growth industries. NONE of them will survive over the next 25 years (some say in as little as 5 years, they could all be gone).

Like those Confederates that have no home to return to, they are fighting to the death. And, this is their Last Stand.

Miracles: A Report From The Field

     "I wonder where they took Ted's body," Rachel said quietly.
     Devin shrugged. "If they free me, I'll call his office and ask his secretary tomorrow. If they jail me, you will."
     "They're not going to jail you, bro." Andrew's face was stern.
     "Who's going to stop them, Drew? You? Going to knock all their heads together, and then start on the bailiffs?"
     Andrew winced and shut his eyes tightly. Devin was stricken with regret for his words, but he could not retract them.
     He can't protect me any more, and it's eating him up.
     "There are no miracles, Drew. The age of miracles is long past. We have to make do with men, now. In a little while, twelve good men and true are going to march in here and tell me what's what, and that'll be that. Relax and get used to it."
     "You're wrong, bro." Andrew's voice shook. "There are miracles. I was present at one. And maybe I'll be present at another. Do you know how to make yourself worthy of a miracle? You stand straight and you live clean. You go to face your enemy with your war paint on and your weapons in hand. You dare him to do his worst, and you give him the best you've got in you. You don't give up."
     [From The Sledgehammer Concerto]

I, too, have been present at a miracle. In fact, I was a participant in one just yesterday. And I’m here to tell you all about it.

It’s been said, and truly, that there was never a man so rich that he didn’t need money – and usually, the more he had, the more he needed. As of a few weeks ago – partly owing to my having married an accountant – I found that that bit of wisdom applied to me.

He who needs money will normally go to his bank, which I did. He applies for a loan, which I did. He awaits the approval of his application, which I did. When I was notified that my application had been approved, I contacted the bank about scheduling the closing. ‘Twas then I received a surprise.

I was told that owing to the Kung Flu pandemic, the closing would be “virtual.” It would involve computers, digital cameras and microphones, and “Zoom.” I make no pretensions to pulchritude and never have, but my home office...let’s just say that just now, owing to the extensive ongoing renovations taking place here at the Fortress, to call it “disheveled” would do it a great compliment. The “virtual closing” would perforce involve both the sight of my unattractive (at best) mug and a peek into my home office. Atop that, I have a formless but considerable fear of banks and closings, owing to certain experiences of which I will decline to speak.

To make a long story somewhat shorter, the “virtual closing” took place yesterday, without a hitch. That, despite my never having participated in any such thing before, a mountain of forms to be read and signed, the requirement for the use of “Zoom,” a program of which I knew little, and my aforementioned fear of banks and closings. It started on time. All the technology involved worked perfectly, including some that had only just been purchased and installed. It was over in an hour, involved no suffering of any kind, and resulted in my being granted the use of a large sum of the bank’s money for no consideration other than my agreement to repay it over time, at a modest rate of interest. My relief at the conclusion was beyond my ability to capture it even in the most extravagant metaphor.

But that’s not the miracle of which I speak.

The bank officer at the closing was a young woman whom I’ll call Nicole, because that’s her name. She was utterly the master of all the procedures involved, but then, you would expect that of someone authorized to lend out large sums of the bank’s money. She knew every jot and tittle of all the documents involved, what needed to be signed or initialed, what needed to be scanned and emailed at once, what needed to be returned to the bank physically, and so forth. Once again, you’d expect that of a loan officer, and I suppose I did.

But I did not expect Nicole.

Nicole was so incredibly patient with this awkward, uncertain old man, considerate of his fears and willing to listen to him talk, that once again, words fail me. Yet she said, offhandedly, that she averages five such closings per day. Incredible! One such closing – the procedure alone, to say nothing of the novelty of the procedure – had me shaking. Yet she led me though it without the slightest ripple of discomfort at any stage. She even guided me through the repackaging of the return documents in the FedEx envelope. The closing was over in an hour. The return package was in a FedEx drop box less than half an hour after that.

If that wasn’t a miracle, I can’t imagine what would qualify.

So! You want to know why there aren’t any miracles these days, eh, hero? You demand to see proof of the divine? You maintain that your atheism is “rational” while our theism is mere superstition? All this, though your contention is as unprovable as ours? So we must prove our stance, else you’ll continue to slather your spittle-filled contempt over us uneducated lowbrow theists?

Have you ever considered the possibility that your unwillingness to allow that there are miracles has rendered you unworthy of one – perhaps insulated from them? Or have you considered the possibility that you’ve ignored the miracles in your life? That they’ve passed unnoticed because you were either inattentive to them or unwilling to acknowledge their miraculousness? That they might just have been embodied as people?

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow, including Nicole.

Monday, August 3, 2020

Immiscibles

It’s a charming word, isn’t it? Try to pronounce it; it’s more of a challenge than you might think. But no matter how it’s mangled orally, its meaning remains the same: incapable of being mixed.

The immiscibility of oil and water is well known. Indeed, it’s the reason for the invention of soap. The grime we accumulate on our skin won’t wash off in water alone. That’s because it’s suspended in the oil our skin naturally exudes as a protection against friction and ultraviolet light. Soap emulsifies (another charming word) that grime-in-oil suspension into something water can flush away. Without soap’s emulsifying action, we’d be reduced to scraping the dirt off ourselves with sticks. That explains the dermatological problems of uncivilized societies pretty well, doesn’t it? But I’m not here to talk about physical chemistry or its practical application to personal hygiene.

Are there demographics, whether they’re already a significant part of the American population or are still largely outside our borders, that are inherently immiscible with the American majority? If so, what makes them immiscible with us?

I think you can guess my opinion, so I won’t bother to rattle on about it. The abstract question is itself of considerable interest. If there are characteristics that render a people incapable of becoming Americans, it would be well for us to know what they are, and for our immigration laws to be cognizant of them. However, at this time little attention has gone to such studies, for a fairly obvious reason: it would be shouted down by the usual suspects as “racist,” “jingoist,” and “xenophobic.”

Rudyard Kipling didn’t think so:

The Stranger within my gate,
     He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
     I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
     But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
     They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
     They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
     When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
     He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
     What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
     Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
     Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
     And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
     They think of the likes of me.
This was my father's belief
     And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
     And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
     By bitter bread and wine.

And of course, we all know what today’s bien-pensants think of Kipling.

Since I have a great deal before me today, I’m setting this question “on the table” for general discussion. I’d like it to focus on characteristics visibly abroad in the world today: traits, beliefs, and practices we can see are firmly associated with particular demographics:

Race and racial or tribal characteristics;
Strongly held religious or ideological convictions;
Attachment to particular customs, practices, and patterns of life.

Be candid but thoughtful. I will participate as time allows. The best bits of the discussion will be used to update this post.

AOC is NOT Looking Good - Throwing Shade on St. Damien

You really have to be a special kind of Entitled to think that your disrespect of an immigrant, held in high esteem by many Indigenous People, is a good move.

That's the kind of Entitled that AOC has made famous.

Pearls of expression.

In response to a Newsweek tweet that "Bill Clinton went to Jeffrey Epstein's island with 2 'young girls,' Virginia Guiffre says": "

This is Newsweek not Infowars (although Infowars had story first) An ex president visiting the private island of a known pedophile who was running a human trafficking operation with the daughter of a spy. Just think about that the next time you ridicule conspiracy theorists.^[1]

Notes
^[1] Tom Dillon quoted in "When Corporate Power Is Your Real Government, Corporate Media Is State Media." By Caitlin Johnstone, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20.

Government running on fumes.

Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans appear willing to bankrupt the nation to perpetuate their own power.
Federal legitimacy hinges on the Constitution, but there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that either Trump or Biden will “make America constitutional again.” As Thomas Jefferson declared in 1786, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.” What’s the point of voting if “government under the law” is not a choice on Election Day? American political legitimacy will continue plummeting as long as politicians scorn any legal and constitutional limits on their power.^[1]

Debt -- limitless.

Spending -- a broken fire hydrant.

Open borders -- to the waters of Tierra del Fuego and the headwaters of the Limpopo.

AntiFa criminality -- unopposed.

Sexual lunacy -- object at your own risk.

Worship of parasites and bastards -- forgive us for we have sinned.

Reckless, pointless wars -- Democrat and Republican rejoicing.

Fatuous claims of American world "leadership" -- worshipful hosannas.

Supreme Court betrayal -- law of the land.

Rotten, ridiculous elections -- our democracy.

Plutocracy and monopoly -- bedrock America.

Dishonest, vicious suppression of free speech -- sue Google.

Notes
^[1] "Make America Constitutional Again?" By James Bovard, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20 (emphasis removed).

Sunday, August 2, 2020

So Crazy This Might Just Work!

In the fervor to extend unemployment bonus payments, those that are screaming, "I want my money, and I want it NOW!" have been accommodated without complaint - so far.

But, as each added bonus is sucked up by the recipients without a pause, perhaps it's time to ask:

Is there a better way to do this?

Here's an idea:

For each 6 months of bonus payments received from this point on, the recipient's Social Security account gets docked for 6 months of earned service, over and above the failure to add to those qualifying years while unemployed.

Those that cannot wait for their money, will lose at the other end. They will, in essence, be raiding their own retirement accounts to pay for their current standard of living.

Isn't that what people with IRAs have to do, should they have need? By treating the SS system in a similar way, we are reducing the amount that the recipients will be able to take out, when they retire. In that way, we are reducing the eventual debt that will fall on taxpayers.

For some people, it is a good, or at least acceptable, short-term solution for their cash flow problems. By introducing the benefit qualification reduction, they will have to weigh the pros and cons of getting their money now, or making decisions to cut their expenses, and conserving the FICA account for the future. Some will decide to forego the payment, and keep their earned SS years intact.

By doing this, we will start shifting the thinking of the public towards the idea that TANSTAAFL.

When You Wonder Whether Some Babies are Just Better Off Not Being Born...

...This pops up in your feed. And, you remember why that idea is wrong.

The fact is, you can just never tell what a kid is going to be like as an adult - or how his life will impact others.

Say what you will about the voraciousness of Amazon, it has done more than any other company to make this transition to mostly online, shop remotely life we have been living in the past few months, a manageable situation, rather than panic in the streets.

Pretty good for the child of an unwed mother, and the stepson of a refugee.

The thing is, you just can't predict outcome from the socioeconomic factors.

I found that to be true in my teaching career. I taught mostly in poor urban school systems, and my students were products of single motherhood, rough neighborhoods, and few examples of working adults.

And, yet, in every class, SOME of them pulled through. Some of them managed to work a steady job, raise a family, and live a good life; that's not a small accomplishment. Others sought out further education. Some joined the military (did you know that a person in the military is LESS likely to die at a young age than a kid who stays in the hood? Even if he is stationed in a combat zone.).

The Leftist idea that the way for people to get ahead in life is to kill off their children is flawed, not merely morally, but also practically.

Multiplications: A Sunday Rumination 2020-08-02

[This essay first appeared at Liberty’s Torch on August 3, 2014. As a huge number of Americans are in an unprecedented degree of need, and there’s a lot of confusion over the proper occasions for – and methods of doing – charity, it seems appropriate that it be reposted at this time. – FWP]

No doubt any Christians in the audience will be familiar with this Gospel tale:

Now when Jesus heard this he went away from there privately in a boat to an isolated place. But when the crowd heard about it, they followed him on foot from the towns. As he got out he saw the large crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick. When it became evening his disciples came to him saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is already late. Send the crowds away so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” But he said to them, “They don’t need to go. You give them something to eat.” They said to him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” “Bring them here to me,” he said. Then he instructed the crowds to sit down on the grass. He took the five loaves and two fish, and looking up to heaven he gave thanks and broke the loaves. He gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the broken pieces left over, twelve baskets full. Not counting women and children, there were about five thousand men who ate. [Matthew 14:13-21]

Ah, yes: The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. Consider how this well known tale is usually retold and swiftly dismissed. Looky here: a miracle! That Redeemer was one awesome dude, eh? That’s that, everybody got the bread crumbs? Let’s pass on to something else now, children.

This morning at Mass, Deacon Michael Byrne of Infant Jesus parish in Port Jefferson told it properly. I can’t remember his exact words, but I can reproduce the gist of his explication. I doubt I’ll ever forget it.

First, Jesus elects to leave the populated area for “an isolated place.” But a huge crowd drops everything and follows him thence...out of a pure desire to be with Him, and remain with Him until night has fallen.

Second, His disciples implore Him to send the other followers away, so they can procure food. But He is moved by the crowd’s hunger for Him and instructs His disciples to feed them out of their own store.

Third, they protest – out of selfishness, or out of realism? – that “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” Clearly, the disciples would prefer that the crowd depart, leaving them alone with Jesus.

Fourth, Jesus would have none of that. He takes the disciples’ food into His hands, gives thanks, and returns it to the disciples for distribution to the multitude.

Fifth and finally, all are fed to satiety, yet the leftovers the disciples collect prove copious enough to give a Tupperware^® salesman an orgasm.

So what happened? Yes, there was a miracle. Yes, it was Christ at the center thereof. But note: It was His disciples’ charity from their own meager store, however reluctantly they provided it, that was the seed for that miracle, and His disciples that distributed the food to the hungry crowd. Moreover, the throng that had followed Him to that deserted place had asked nothing of Him...except to be in His nearness.

There’s a moral in there, isn’t there?

Sane persons who live in healthy societies don’t perform charity carelessly or thoughtlessly. They seek to know what they’re doing, and for whom, and what consequences it will have. But once such a man has identified a person in need, has decided that that person deserves assistance rather than being a freeloader of some sort, and has satisfied himself that his alms are more likely to conduce to good rather than harm – i.e., that his gifts will bring about a net improvement in the state of the beneficiary – he proceeds to give from his own store, and with his own hands. He doesn’t allow intermediaries between himself and the recipient, for one can never be certain that such persons will serve his agenda and not something wholly distinct from it.

That sort of charity is vanishingly rare in our time. Almost all contemporary “charitable giving” involves monetary gifts rendered to salaried intermediaries who work for corporate entities, on the representation that the funds will go to benefit “the needy.” Those “needy” never acquire faces or names.

As we know, in the usual case a hefty fraction of our monetary gifts won’t get anywhere near “the needy,” going instead to “operating expenses:” the salaries of those who collected the funds. That fraction has, in a number of cases, risen all the way to 100%. What remains to become benefits distributed to “the needy” will do so in an unpredictable fashion: the giver can know neither the form nor time of delivery. Perhaps worst of all, “the needy” are not guaranteed to be persons whose troubles are not of their own making, nor that the benefits will bring about a true and enduring improvement in their existences. Few “charitable institutions” bother to do the checking that might ascertain such things. Worse, they and those who work for them have an innate incentive to perpetuate dependency rather than to dispel it, for dependency is the source of their income and their importance.

Thus, quite a lot of our giving results mainly in paying well-to-do hirelings and perpetuating the dependency of persons who, in the most common case, feel no gratitude whatsoever for their blessings.

So why do we do it?

Of all the glorious things Jesus said while He wore the flesh, none are more important than these:

Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 22:36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. 22:39 The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.” [Matthew 22:34-40]

Clearly, to “love your neighbor” implies that you should help him when appropriate – i.e., when he wants it, needs it, and deserves it. You must not do him harm: “Love does no evil to a neighbor.” But who is this “neighbor” of whom the Redeemer speaks? Is it anyone and everyone who might happen to profess a need?

Not at all. Your neighbor is he who is near you: near enough that you can determine what he needs, the reasons for it, and what might improve his condition for yourself.

Only if you’re confident that you know those things should you proceed to render charity – from your own hands, and never against your neighbor’s wishes or resistance.

Jesus had His disciples distribute the food He had blessed and invested with His power. He intended that they be the ones the throng see as their beneficiaries, perhaps because He knew that the disciples’ time on Earth would greatly exceed His, but perhaps more because He wanted them to know true charity as few, even in those years, knew it. They had performed the preliminaries: taking stock of the hour and the crowd’s lack of food, and providing their own food, however meager, for an offering. The third step – the actual giving of alms from person to person – was what remained. With it, the recipe was completed, and Love could act to multiply their gifts as He intended.

The lesson has largely been lost on us of the Twenty-First Century. It need not be so.

May God bless and keep you all.

Quickies: Words Matter, Especially When They’re Missing – And Missed

You all know what a stickler I am for the proper uses of words. I’ve come near to blows over the deliberate misuse of words by persons attempting to bully or deceive with them. Being a rather determined sort, I don’t back down when I catch such a miscreant in the act...and I make sure they regret bearding this particular lion in his lexicographical den.

But there are subtleties to the use of words that are obscure to too many people. This incident provides a particularly good illustration:

I have the utmost admiration for young Mr. Isaac, especially given the pressure he must have been under to conform to the racialist narrative to which his teammates have succumbed. That having been said, I wish he were a bit more acute about the question he was asked. Follow along with me as I rewrite the exchange.

Reporter: Do you believe Black Lives Matter?
Isaac: Ask the question properly.
Reporter: Excuse me? I said do you believe—
Isaac: I heard what you said. I also heard what you didn’t say.
Reporter: What are you talking about?
Isaac: There’s a word missing from your question, and its absence makes the question ambiguous. I refuse to answer a question phrased so ambiguously that you can interpret it to mean whatever you choose.
Reporter: What word is missing?
Isaac: Work it out for yourself, dude. Then come back and ask me again.

My highly intelligent and articulate Gentle Readers “should” have enough information to answer the question for themselves, but just in case you’re not up for the riddle at this hour, I’ll answer it here:

The missing word is that.
It belongs after believe and before black.

“Reporters,” of course, aren’t primarily interested in the facts these days. They’re certainly less interested in what an athlete actually believes than in whether they can get him into conformance with the editorial committee’s preferred “narrative.” So I consider it a good bet that the omission of the word that was deliberate, to create the very ambiguity I’ve cited. Your mileage may vary.

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Acceptance And Accommodation

There’s a mountain of stuff to write about today. As I’m loath to space assorted pieces too closely, I’ve been looking for a unifying theme. I think I’ve found one. Perhaps you’ll agree with me about it. At any rate, I hope so.

If you live long enough (“How long is that?” I hear you mutter), you’ll surely be told, in the face of some unpleasant imposition, that you’ll get used to it. I’ve heard that dread phrase many times in my sixty-eight years. The tally is higher than I care to count. You might have a similar story to tell.

The truly terrible thing about you’ll get used to it is that in the overwhelming majority of applications, it’s absolutely correct. There are few things one cannot “get used to.” The human body and mind are immensely adaptable items. Our adaptability is why humans can survive both Antarctica and Death Valley. It’s why neither torrential storms nor protracted droughts can kill us off. But paradoxically, it’s also a weapon that can be wielded against us.

Once people accept that some disliked condition cannot be dispelled, they begin the process of accommodating themselves to it. They make necessary adjustments. They budget for palliative treatments. Most important for the theme of this tirade, they condition their minds to the thing: If it’s not going away, I might as well get used to it. The product of such mental accommodations resembles a kind of numbness.

We are sometimes – often? – subjected to demands to broaden that numbness. As with friction, it’s the initial transition from rejection to acceptance that costs the most pain and effort. Subsequent broadenings that merely “expand on the theme” cost less, at least viewed independently of one another.

I could tell you stories, but I’m sure you have enough of your own. Instead, I’ll recap a few noteworthy developments of decades past, in my own, admittedly tendentious manner. What follows is a narrative that’s been acted out in far too many places.

Sure, they’re not much like us most ways, but that doesn’t mean they can’t become more like us. We can educate them, prepare them to assimilate to mainstream society. So why don’t we? Build them schools, put good teachers in them, and we’ll see what happens. What? Why separate schools? You don’t want our kids have to sit next to theirs, do you?

All right, maybe it was unfair to make them go to separate schools. After all, they need models to emulate, don’t they? So enough with the separation, let them into our schools. What’s that? Of course we’ll make them toe the line! One set of rules for all is the American way!

Yeah, they’re kind of boisterous and unruly. We didn’t expect this much of it...or that our kids would start to emulate them rather than the other way around. But we can keep order. A few more hall guards and recess monitors won’t break the budget. If we can’t have absolute decorum, we can still insist that there be no violence or theft.

What do you mean you can’t get Tyrone’s dad in here for a conference? Have you insisted? Doesn’t he have a dad? What? He doesn’t know who his dad is? Who supports him and his siblings? Oh, the hell with it. Call the precinct and have him charged with assault and battery.

The principal heard from the chief this morning. They won’t be charging any more of our bullies or vandals. Something about flak from the state capital. We’ll just have to deal with them ourselves...though how and with what, I can’t imagine.

Sorry, Miss Jones, but Rufus isn’t going to graduate. He’s failed four subjects, he’s been absent more than half the school year, and he can barely read. If I were to allow him a diploma, it would cheapen every other diploma I award...what’s that, Lawyer Smith? I must issue him a diploma? Even though he’s assaulted thirty other students and is on trial for armed robbery? Who’s paying your fees...oh, them. We’ll see about this!

Yeah, they’re a problem. Our kids try their best to stay clear of them, but it’s not always possible. Unfortunately, because of what all the new social workers and counselors have cost us, we can’t afford to hire more security...and the board won’t let us give the guards as much as a nightstick. Something about pressure from higher up, though what’s gotten into their panties no one will say.

No, we can’t make them attend. They simply won’t, their mothers are uncooperative, and the truant officers can’t bring them in. Their buddies protect them too effectively. Maybe it’s for the best. After all, they weren’t learning anything, and having them out of the school means our kids are a little safer, even if it means the streets are a little less safe.

What? You want me to teach there? Do you have any idea what goes on in that school? I won’t even drive through that neighborhood! They can drug and kill each other until there are none left!

Then the federal government sites a “public housing” project in a previously peaceful district.

The little tale above begins somewhere in the early part of the Twentieth Century, shortly after Plessy v. Ferguson. Today it’s rolling forward at high speed, in tandem with all kinds of other developments that are as bad or worse.

First we accept. Then we accommodate. The consequences aren’t always as purely negative as the above mini-narrative, but when it comes to compulsory integration of the races, there have been more developments that conformed to the pattern than departed from it.

Don’t think the pattern as I’ve depicted it pertains strictly to schooling. Anytime we say to one another that “we can’t fix it, so we’ll just have to get used to it,” the pattern is reproduced, with details of its own. The burgeoning welfare state and the rise of the permanent underclass. The explosion of single motherhood, in which the State replaces the father as the primary provider. The creation of unpoliced “no-go” zones. The emergence of cooperative arrangements between law enforcement and criminal organizations. And now, two months of highly destructive riots, supposedly over the death of a convicted felon at police hands.

Economist Herbert Stein has famously said that “If something cannot continue indefinitely, it will stop.” Needless to say! The absence of a reliable end date does not invalidate the observation. It does, however, make the rest of us wonder what “stopping it” will require of us.

Quoth Fred Reed:

     [R]ace is just the most explosive part of an unfunctioning polity. Other things ratchet up the fury. Add economic decay and you get more anger, more pressure. People live paycheck to paycheck, maxed out on credit cards. They don’t have a thousand dollars, or five hundred, for an emergency. The young live in their parents’ basements because they can’t get jobs to buy houses and start families. People don’t see doctors because medical care is both costly and wretched. Student loans crush the young. Grade schools are propaganda mills; parents know it, but can do nothing. Retirement programs vanish as employers turn employees into independent contractors, avoiding the expense of benefits. People see no hope. This makes them dangerous. Watch.
     And BLM wants to go into the suburbs to get Whitey. God help us. Then it will well and truly blow. BLM doesn’t know how many white men are sick of the chaos and destruction, sick of BLM. They quietly say, “Bring it on. Let’s settle it.” Laden words.
     While these undercurrents grow, the media will chirp and lecture and say virtuous things. Then, boom....
     The deadliest question is how to accommodate blacks. One mustn’t say what everyone knows, that blacks are the least educable, least productive, most criminal, most violent, most dependent, and least assimilable of the population. If anything can be done about any of these, it won’t be, because no one is permitted to name the problem. No one is in charge.
     [Emphasis added by FWP.]

Fred is spot on, especially in the emphasized sentence. Further accommodation is not possible without surrendering the country to a black-supremacist ideology in which enough melanin renders the possessor above the law. Yet we are here because of previous acceptances and accommodations, mostly the fruits of benevolent intentions.

We meant well. Every step of the way, we told ourselves that we only meant to help. And the Good Intentions Paving Company was there to reassure us that we were “doing the right thing.”

Were we?

I’ve described one possible outcome to this madness. There are others, mostly worse. Whichever one should ultimately arrive, it will be mainly our fault for acting on our wishes and intentions instead of on the evidence of our senses.

Further relevant links:

Buy ammo. And pray.

An essay on "proxy" forces.

It is inconceivable that the British government believes harboring thousands of terrorists within its borders will not result in terrorism.
It harbors these terrorists in order to cultivate and deploy them in future proxy wars and in the meantime prevents them from being liquidated abroad when targets of Western aggression get the upper hand.^[1]

The use of proxies or indigenous troops is as old as the Khyber Pass but the hypocrisy about their use of late can be cut with a knife. If Mr. Cartalucci is correct then we see that Britain is using the vilest of the vile for its foreign policy games. As does the U.S. in Syria and did in Libya. The attack on the consulate in Benghazi resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens and other brave (!!) Americans illustrated that proxies are a dangerous tool as likely to buck in your hands as an improperly used power tool. Hillary and Obongo had no appreciation of this at all and scattered like cockroaches in the kitchen when the chickens came home to Capistrano.

The U.S. used ethnic (Montagnards, Nung) and religious minorities (Hoa Hao, Cao Dai) in Vietnam masterfully. I never for a moment feared any kind of a betrayal from the good-humored and effective Hoa Hoa troops with whom I served. Their religion is quasi-Buddhist by which term I mean no disrespect and their hostility to the Viet Minh and the local Cong needed no affidavits of sincerity.

It isn't the cooperation with and support of various groups here and there in the world that are the problem per se. Rather, the national goals served by establishing such relations, the moral obligations created in the process, and the choice of "partners," as the U.S. loves to say, are what are important.

"American interests" is term that's downright rubbery these days and I can't see how sending arms to ISIS troops in Syria advances even the most limited sense of that term. (And it IS obvious those arms came from Jordan where we and the Saudis have a presence.) As is true of our primary role in Operation Inherent Resolve with its 500+K civilian casualties and immense destruction in Syria. Massive death and destruction and for what?

In Syria the goal of getting rid of Assad the Mad Dog Ophthalmologist is rotten from the git and allying ourselves with ISIS and al-Qaida there is a move that stains ANY goal we might have for involvement in that country. We've been disgraced by our "partners" in Syria and Cartalucci points out how the British have been bitten by their coddled proxies right in their own backyard. Things not looking good for their and our arrogant dabblings in the lives of various "enemies" here and there.

But, of course, there are those Iranians and their proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. We can't have that. That's just wrong.

Notes
^[1] "Reading Stabbings: Deliberate Product of UK Foreign Policy." By Tony Cartalucci, Land Destroyer Report, 7/12/20.

Pearls of expression.

The Trump administration has begun slashing the US military presence in Germany from an almost satisfactory 36,000 troops to a practically microscopic 24,000. I think we can all agree that this is the single worst thing that has ever happened in the history of Germany, and arguably the universe.
* * [Expressions of horror from John Bolton, Bill Kristol, CNN, David Welna (NPR), Fred Kaplan (Slate), and Susan Rice.] * *
So as you can see, this troop withdrawal is being met with righteous garment rending by all the best people. What more evidence do you need that we should regard endless military expansionism as the norm and treat even the slightest most peripheral deviation from that path as a freakish apocalyptic travesty?

"Is The Exit Of 12,000 US Troops The 'Single Worst Event In German History'?" By Caitlin Johnstone, ZeroHedge, 7/31/20 (emphasis removed).