Saturday, December 27, 2014

Tornado or Tipping Point?

Could your reading this column change the course of history?  It is my hope that this brief column will feel like the breeze of a butterfly blowing on your cheek.  In 1972, Edward Lorenz delivered in Washington, D.C., a paper to the American Association for the Advancement of Science entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?  What he suggested was “a small change in the initial condition of a system could cause a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena.”  This is now popularly referred to as the "butterfly effect."   Had the butterfly not flapped its wings in Brazil, you might not be reading this right now. 
 

We used to have a maxim – “How many Rangers can you fit in the back of a truck?” The answer: “All of them.”  Said another way, there is always room for one more Ranger.  At some level, that seems right – you can always squeeze in, or pile on, one more.  At another level, we know that is wrong.  This concept is expressed in the old saw “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”  Some may remember the old plastic camel kids’ game.  The players would take turns putting a piece of “straw” into one of the two baskets on its back.  Eventually, one last, little piece of straw would break the beast of burden’s back.  The one who put that last straw in would be the loser.

One might define the point where the camel’s back breaks as the “tipping point.” That exact point where the camel goes from being a useful conveyer of cargo to a broken beast is the tipping point.  Malcolm Gladwell wrote a business book titled just that – The Tipping Point.  In it, Gladwell defines a tipping point as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point". The book attempts to explain the "mysterious" sociological changes that mark everyday life.  In it, Gladwell states, "Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread like viruses do".   Examples some of us might be able to relate to could include the previously popular “pet rock” or perhaps the omnipresent “smart phone”.    From “relatively rare” to “everyone has one.”  Somewhere between those two poles was the “tipping point.”

President Barack Obama plainly said he wanted to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America.  For many Americans, that sounds more like a virus than a vision.  In the latest Gallup survey, only four in ten Americans approve of the job Obama is doing. The latest Rasmussen poll indicates two out of three American voters think our country is headed in the wrong direction.  Only one in four thinks that we’re going in the right direction.   

The trouble with tinkering with a complex system is that you can’t always predict the outcome of your tinkering.  If you’re arrogant enough to think that you can fundamentally (and radically) transform a complex system, you are just plain reckless.  One sixth of our economy, our very health care system, is being fundamentally transformed by a bill that was built on lies.  The unanticipated and unintended consequences of a bill that not one Republican would vote for, nor one Democrat even read, are still being exposed. What we do know is that Dr. Gruber and President Obama lied to the American people in the process.  As a matter of fact, the fact-checking website Politifact named President Obama's claim that people could keep their health insurance plans if they liked them its "Lie of the Year" for 2013.

The danger with Barrack Obama is that he’s producing a “Tornado in Texas.”  Barrack Obama has put more guns into the hands of ordinary Americans than the US had under arms in all of World War II. In the US last year, there were over 21 million background checks for gun purchases.  The total number of Americans that served during all of World War II, in the Pacific and European theaters combined, was 16.1 million. In the last year alone, there were five million more checks for gun purchases than all of the Americans that served during all of World War II.  Manufacturers mockingly made Obama “Gun Salesman of the Century.”  You’ll recall ammo sales also exploded – to the point of shortages.

Is Barrack Obama more like a tornado or the tipping point?  Is he more like the transformer-in-chief, or the straw that breaks the nation’s back?  We may not have healthcare for our well-being, but America will be well-armed.   



This column originally appeared in the 24 DEC  2014 Upson Beacon.

New Contributor!

I am pleased to announce that we’ve got a new Contributor here at Liberty’s Torch: Colonel Robert Young (retired), currently a newspaper columnist in Upson County, Georgia. A brief bio of Colonel Young follows:

Colonel Robert G. Young retired on 30 JUL 2014. His last assignment was Alpha Company, Warrior Transition Unit, Fort Benning, GA.

He was born in Washington, DC. His father (Robert A, Young) was a career diplomat for the US Department of State and Colonel in the US Army Reserves, his mother (Julie) a registered nurse. In 1979 he enlisted in the infantry, serving in the 1/8th Infantry Bn, 4th ID (M), Fort Carson, Colorado; the 1/16th Infantry Bn, 1st ID (FWD), and the 11th Special Forces Group (ABN), Fort Meade, MD.

In 1985 he was awarded a BA degree from the University of Maryland and designated a Distinguished Military Graduate, receiving a Regular Army commission as a second lieutenant. His military education includes CGSC and the Officer Basic and Advanced Courses. He holds a Master of Arts degree (MMAS) from the Command and General Staff College.

Over the last 35 years, COL Young has had the great privilege to serve our Nation in a variety of units on numerous deployments and operations including:

  • 1981-82 Cold War (West Germany) – 1st Infantry Division
  • 1988 GOLDEN PHEASANT (Central America) - 82nd Airborne
  • 1989-90 JUST CAUSE (Panama) - 82nd Airborne
  • 1990-91 DESERT SHIELD/STORM (Saudi Arabia/Iraq) - 82nd Airborne
  • 1992 CABANAS (Honduras) - 528th SOSB, US Army Special Forces Command
  • 1994 UPHOLD DEMOCRACY (Haiti) - 75th Ranger Regiment
  • 1996-97 Defense of Korea (Republic of Korea) – 2nd Infantry Division
  • 2004-05 ENDURING FREEDOM (Kandahar, Afghanistan) 3rd BDE, 25th Infantry Division
  • 2007-08 IRAQI FREEDOM (Kuwait & Iraq) Third Army/US Army Central
  • 2009-10 ENDURING FREEDOM (Kabul, Afghanistan) ACSE-A, US Army Central

Among his awards are the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (5 Awards), Army Commendation Medal (5 Awards), Army Achievement Medal (6 Awards), Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (2 Awards - Panama and Haiti), Kuwaiti Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait), Southwest Asia Service Medal (2 Bronze Stars), Afghanistan Campaign Medal(2 Bronze Stars), Korea Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, NATO medal (Afghanistan/ISAF) National Defense Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Meritorious Unit Citation (Bronze Oak leaf) and the Army Superior Unit Award (w/OLC). He has earned the Air Assault Badge, Pathfinder Badge, US Master Parachutist Badge, and the German, Canadian and Honduran Master Parachutist Badges and the Ranger Tab.

He is married to the former Sally Kennedy of Columbus, GA. He has five children; Rob - formerly served in the 3rd Ranger Bn (two deployments to Afghanistan), Jane - a graduate of Auburn University, and three still at home, Rebekah (18), Sarah Beth (16), and John David (11).

Please welcome Colonel Young to the Liberty’s Torch roster.

Report From Long Island, Good News Edition

I’m in too good a mood to produce one of my usual tirades, so allow me to ramble a bit.

The sun is out today. We haven’t had a lot of sunshine lately, and it tends to get less frequent as the winter intensifies, so I’m grateful for that.

I managed to finish the first draft of Polymath, which I’d struggled with far longer than I expected when I began the project, so I’m grateful for that. A dozen persons have volunteered to read and comment on the draft, and given my propensity to make errors I can’t see even when revising, I’m just as grateful for that.

My new Yamaha digital piano, which was marked down about 60% at Amazon, has proved to be everything I’d hoped it would be, so I’m grateful for that. Unfortunately, all my piano chops have vanished over the twenty-five years or so since I last played. However, I’ve acquired several helpful books and teach-yourself courses by which to work on regaining those skills, and I’m grateful for them as well.

I recently became a member of a Massage Envy spa near my home – if there’s one near you, check it out; they’re not that expensive and very good for you – and Corie, my masseuse, has helped to alleviate several of my chronic aches and pains, so I’m grateful for that.

My most recent blood tests indicate that my type 2 diabetes is firmly under control and my cholesterol and PSA levels have returned to the healthy band. I’m really grateful for that.

I’ll retire from my day job on or about 5/1/2015, with absolutely no debts whether long-term or short-term. Between my company pension and my savings, I shan’t need one penny of valuta from Uncle Sam, and I’m incredibly grateful for that.

My novels have reached over 100,000 readers. About 1% of them have written to express their appreciation for my books. The words required to express how grateful I am for that haven’t yet been added to the English language.

Despite my age and various physical troubles, I’ve retained my alertness, my acuity, the sharpness of my perceptions, and my overall joie de vivre. I remain married, much to the astonishment of my wife’s friends. My neighbors are pleasant and helpful. My neighborhood is as safe as any in America. Grateful? You bet.

My animals are healthy. All my machines work. The prices of oil and gas are down. The fridge, freezer, and pantry are stuffed to capacity. There’s plenty of ammo for all the guns. And I managed to score an inexpensive used copy of Dead Space for PlayStation 3, with a strategy guide! Die, necromorphs, die!

With all the complaining going on out there, I figured you might enjoy hearing that for at least one person, life is currently okay and better than okay. So what if I can’t...nahh, you wouldn’t want to hear about that.

If you’re wondering what brought this on, it was an email from a friend who’s not doing so well. He has my prayers and my sympathies, of course. He’s also done me a great service, by reminding me about my own good fortune. I’d love for everyone to be able to say the same, but as I know full well that that will never be the case, at least I can appreciate my own blessings properly.

And how have you been doing, Gentle Reader?

I Promise You Won’t Believe This...

...unless you view it for yourself:

And cleanliness is next to godliness, you know.

Friday, December 26, 2014

A Request For My Readers

Polymath, “a novel of the American Renaissance,” is complete in first draft.
I need a test reader for it. Perhaps two or three.
Any volunteers?

What is America's survival plan?

There is no American survival plan against Islamic subversion and terror. In fact, the entire Western world is in denial about the vile and deadly threat of Islam. Where there isn't active deception. We are in danger of being ruled by our inferiors. Islamic culture is just primitivism masquerading as a civilization.

Everything about it is sick.

Carol Brown lays out the basics of a plan to eradicate the threat here.

We all need to just cut the crap. We have set up a dynamic where if we do nothing the West will be inundated by its enemies. Unpleasant actions are required but inaction means something far more unpleasant for us in our own countries.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Contretemps: A Christmas Story

(A Christmas gift to my readers. Among the great mysteries of modern life is why people who know the benefits that flow from faith reject it, and them, when they need them most. American life, especially, is about as strenuous as the unaugmented human animal can withstand. So why be stubborn? Why not partake? Why not admit that every so often, we come to a pass so narrow that only faith can release us?)

    The sound of his wife’s footsteps approaching pulled at Stephen Sumner’s neck hair. He hoisted his magazine a little higher in hope that she’d walk past. It wasn’t to be.
    “Would you like a ham or a lasagna for the second entree?”
    He dipped the magazine and peered up into her face. Adrienne’s expression was mock-solicitous, almost sappy. A pinpoint-sized eraser to dab at a mural of recrimination and regret.
    “Doesn’t matter.” He pointedly returned his eyes to his reading and listened for her departure. In vain.
    “Steve?” Incredibly, she hooked a finger over his magazine and pulled it aside. “Can’t we make this a good Christmas? It doesn’t last that long, you know.”
    Everything lasts too long with you.
    He bit back his reply, smiled weakly and nodded. She looked into his eyes a moment longer, driving him to the edge of his endurance, and returned to her kitchen.
    His watch made it a few minutes before noon.
    Bob and his brood will be here in an hour. A whole day of bellowing, demands for liquor, and tasteless jokes told at the top of his voice.
    Bob Bushnell was Adrienne’s brother. He and his wife Ruth were notoriously lax with their children. The previous year, Michael and Susanna had run pell-mell through his home from the hellish moment of their arrival to the blessed instant of their departure. Sumner had tried to halt them as gently as he could, which wasn’t very. His reward had been a screaming match with Ruth that had left his head ringing for the rest of the day.
    It isn’t bad enough that I have to put up with them and their mannerless spratlings. They’ll probably bring Scout again.
    He clenched his jaws at the thought. The previous year, the black Lab had left bruises all over Sumner’s shins with his whiplike tail. When Sumner had left off watching him to pursue the rampaging kids, Scout had ruined a priceless antique armoire by piddling on it. Sumner had never come that close to violence before.
    Anticipation of the trials to come pushed him out of his chair and toward the coat closet. He yanked his overcoat off its hanger, pulled it around himself with a savage jerk, and made for the door. Adrienne chose that moment to emerge from her kitchen again.
    She started to say something, took note of the coat, and stopped. He halted as well. For the first time that day, he looked at his wife and actually saw her.
    Adrienne was wearing the black sheath dress that flattered her so, the one she only wore under a blue moon. She’d accessorized it with a thin gold belt, a strand of pearls, and her black opera pumps. Her thick, shoulder-length black hair gleamed like a satin cascade around her face. At forty years of age, she was still a heart-stopping beauty. When she made the effort.
    Twice a year. Thanksgiving and Christmas, when her family comes for dinner. The rest of the time it’s sweat clothes and sneakers.
    It was the extra push he needed. He turned away from her and started out of the house.
    “Steve...?”
    “Later.”
    “Where are you going?”
    He didn’t turn. “To see a man about a dog.”
    “What?”
    He closed the door behind him without replying.

#

    The streets of Onteora were thinly traveled. Few cars passed him as he walked. A bare handful of pedestrians, collars and scarves pulled tight against the thickly falling snow, trudged past him through the five inches that had accumulated already.
    Sumner stalked down Grand Avenue, the city’s main boulevard. Shop windows that had glittered brightly at him, promoting the commercialized joys of the season for weeks past were shuttered and dim. Their proprietors were undoubtedly at home, enduring whatever agonies their own families allocated to the magic day.
    His anger-fueled pace took him swiftly through the city proper and into the dormitory suburb of Foxwood. Commercial buildings gave way to single-family homes on modest lots, each swaddled in a blanket of snow. The trickle of pedestrian traffic dwindled to nothing. As he walked, the spire of Our Lady Of The Pines, Onteora’s Roman Catholic Church, gradually came into view. It drew him forward like a beacon in darkness.
    Presently he stood before the tall oaken doors, glumly regarding the large sign at the entrance.

All The Joy Of The Most Joyous Of Days To You and Yours!
Christmas Day High Masses at 8, 9, 10, and 11AM
Christmas Evening Masses at 7, 8, and 9PM
Glory To The Newborn King!

    He’d married Adrienne in this church, fifteen years before. She’d insisted on a religious wedding. Though a lapsed Catholic who’d ceased to practice it upon graduating from high school, he’d made no protest. He’d walked in as a free man, walked out with a shackle on his arm, and had not returned.
    As if of its own accord, his hand reached out to grasp the antique wrought iron door pull. He realized what he was about to do and consciously jerked himself away.
    That was the beginning of a slow ride to hell. I should have put my foot down then and there and hauled her to a Justice Of The Peace.
    Snow from his collar slid down his back. The shock of the wet cold on his neck made him spasm and mutter an oath. He shook himself and slapped awkwardly at the icy lump, then turned back toward the church doors as if compelled.
    Why am I standing here? I’m not going in there.
    Struck by a sudden premonition of danger, he wheeled and ran down the church steps toward the gate. In his confusion, his muscles did not register the change in traction beneath his feet, and his hearing did not detect the burble of the pickup truck accelerating down the street.
    At the walkway’s edge, he lost all control of his motion. He found himself skidding helplessly into the street as the truck came rumbling past.
    In a panic, he cast himself backward, deliberately flopping onto his back on the walk. The back of his head struck the icy concrete with an unanticipated force, sending swirling blue worms through his world to steal away the day and deliver him into darkness.

#

    He awoke sitting in the rear pew of the church, his coat pulled tight around him, hands thrust deep into its pockets. The church was dark, except for a single candle that lit the tabernacle upon the altar. The dim sun of winter did not pierce the stained glass windows. It could well have been midnight.
    A male figure stood at the altar rail, facing toward the rear of the church. The man was dressed in ordinary street clothes. He wore no coat. His hands were clasped before him. His eyes were on Sumner’s face.
    “I haven’t seen you here in quite a while, Steve.”
    Sumner carefully hoisted himself erect and approached the other. His face seemed familiar, but Sumner could put no name to him.
    “I’m sorry, have we met?”
    The stranger’s face was unreadable.
    “Perhaps not. Not that I haven’t been waiting for it. But you’ve been more than a little reluctant to stop by the house.”
    Sumner blinked. “Are you the pastor? What happened to Father Schliemann?”
    Schliemann’s more of an institution than the church. If he’d died or retired, I’m sure I’d have heard of it.
    The man smiled. “No, I’m not the pastor. Let’s say I’m an interested observer. Very interested.”
    “Then—”
    “Later, perhaps. What brings you out today? Why aren’t you with your family?”
    Sumner’s confusion receded before the returning tide of his anger. “What family? Adrienne’s family? Sorry, Adrienne’s—”
    “Your wife. Yes, I know.” The man’s low, mellifluous voice dropped still further. “You took her to wife here, at this altar. Promised to love and cherish her, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death did you part.”
    Sumner stared. The stranger couldn’t be more than about thirty years old.
    Is he one of Adrienne’s cousins?
    “Forgive me, please. Were you there that day? I confess I can’t remember you.”
    The man’s face darkened. “Yes, I was there. I like weddings. I go to all of them. Every wedding holds infinite promise, even if what comes after isn’t always for the best.” He turned to gaze at the altar and the tabernacle upon it.
    “You and Adrienne had all the possibilities of any other newlyweds, Steve. All of life stretched before you. Your paths were yours to choose. But today you’re a bitter man, prematurely drained of life and isolated from all that might freshen your spirit. What happened?”
    The question, so directly put, staggered Sumner where he stood. He stumbled forward a pace and planted his hands on the rail to steady himself.
    “I don’t know. I... we just lost it, somehow. We—”
    The man looked sideways at him, knowing and monitory.
    “‘We,’ Steve? Adrienne’s still trying. She weeps sometimes, when you’re not around to see it. She tells me over and over how much she loves you. It hasn’t been easy for her, she’s gotten just about none of the things she hoped for from marriage, but she’s still trying to rescue you. What have you been doing?” He faced Sumner squarely. “Are you even trying to love her back?”
    Sumner stood aghast, mouth hanging open. The man nodded.
    “Yes, I knew. I don’t miss that sort of thing.” He turned back toward the tabernacle. His face seemed to glow in the steadily deepening darkness.
    “I don’t like to take a direct hand in these domestic matters. I prefer to leave that sort of thing to my mother. But every now and then, someone who has absolutely no excuse catches my eye, and I do this. They say a word to the wise is sufficient, Steve. Got the idea?”
    Sumner fought down his shivers and found his voice. “What do you want me to do?”
    The stranger cocked an eyebrow. “What do you want to do?”
    “Is... is it up to me?”
    The man nodded. “It always has been. Each man is the master in his own house, from the day he takes his life into his own hands until the day he dies. What do you want from your marriage, Steve?”
    “Love. Companionship. Support. Children... once.”
    The stranger cocked an eyebrow. “Children? It seems to me you did your best to defeat that particular goal of matrimony.”
    Sumner said nothing.
    “Well, it isn’t too late. But for the rest of it, what do you propose to do to get what you and I would both love for you to have?”
    “Uh...”
    “How about providing a few of the things you said you wanted to Adrienne? Wouldn’t that be a start?”
    It was more than a disinterested suggestion.
    “Yes, it would.”
    The man nodded. “Those things come more readily if you learn how to forget yourself a little, now and then. This is one of the places where that’s easiest to do.”
    “Sundays?”
    “Sundays, yes, but the other days are good, too.” The glowing face was overcome by longing. “I’ve missed you, Steve. I hate to see anyone in pain. There’s relief from that here, if you open yourself to it. The doors are never locked.”
    Sumner tore his eyes from the luminous visage and let them roam the church. The pews and font, statues and sacred images were reminders of his youth, gentle prods to memories of a time when little had seemed impossible, when life had been lit with promise. Even in the darkness, now nearly complete, it was a supremely welcoming place.
    “I’ll be back.”
    The man nodded. “I’m glad to hear it.”
    “Will I... will I see you again?”
    The glowing face was touched with a wry humor, knowledge of unnameable secrets blended with an impish delight in the twistings of time and chance.
    “That depends. Now go home and be the master in your own house. Gently, but firmly. As I am in mine.”
    Sumner was seized by vertigo. He staggered back, lowered his head and fell to his knees.
    The church whirled and became formless.

#

    “Mister?”
    “Huh?” Sumner struggled up from the murky depths. He found himself on his back, on the rearmost pew of Our Lady Of The Pines. A short, slight figure loomed over him, hands gently chafing Sumner’s face: a young man about twenty years old, with a smooth, solemn face and piercing dark brown eyes. He noticed Sumner’s return to consciousness and gave a sigh of relief.
    “Thank God. I’ve been trying to wake you up for an hour. Are you okay?”
    “I think so.” Sumner heaved himself upright. As he did, he was visited by a spike of pain from the back of his head. He put his fingers to it and winced. At least there was no blood.
    “Did you haul me in here?”
    The young man nodded. “I was driving the truck.”
    Sumner looked him over. He looked to weigh about a hundred fifty pounds. “All by yourself?”
    “Well, yes.”
    “Never mind. What’s your name?”
    “Louis Redmond.”
    “Thank you, Louis. I’m sorry if I worried you. Could you do one other thing for me?”
    “Sure, what?”
    “Drive me home? I walked here from Chedwick. It’s only about three miles.”
    The young man grinned. “No problem. Come on, let’s go.”
    As Louis navigated the slippery roads through the city, Sumner asked him, “Am I taking you out of your way?”
    Louis shrugged. “It’s no big deal. I wanted to spend an hour in church, and I did.” He grinned. “I didn’t expect to spend it that way, but what the hell.”
    Sumner chuckled. “Well, it’s time for both of us to get back to our families.”
    Louis said nothing. From the corner of his eye, Sumner saw a delicate thread of tension run down the boy’s cheek. He knew at once that Louis had no family, that chance had reaved them from him, that he’d gone out into the snow that Christmas day for a reason exactly the reverse of the one that had launched Sumner from his home: to mourn.
    They pulled up before Sumner’s house in Chedwick moments later. Louis set the handbrake and turned toward Sumner.
    “Careful on the walk, okay? If you don’t pay attention, you can go really wrong really fast.”
    Sumner nodded. “I know.” He stuck out his hand. “Thank you, Louis. Merry Christmas.”
    Louis shook it. “You’re welcome, uh—”
    “Steve Sumner.”
    “You’re welcome, Steve, and all the joy of the day to you.”
    “And to you, Louis. Good-bye.”
    He strode up his own walk with new purpose. Every window of the stately Federal colonial, the chief prize of his twenty years’ labor at law, was bright. The Bushnells’ car was nestled behind his in the driveway. From the house came the light and sounds of an incipient party: seasonal music, laughter, and the multifarious jostlings of a family gathering.
    “My house,” he murmured. He let himself in and made for the kitchen, where Adrienne was holding court as she finished assembling her lasagna. Ruth was weakly cajoling her children about not making trouble. Bob was already flushed and sweating, complaining about his dry-goods business over the carols from the bookshelf stereo, waving a half-filled glass for punctuation.
    Sumner reached for the stereo and switched it off. The others fastened on him at once.
    “Yo, brother-in-law!” Bob said. “Got a few new ones for you. Heard the one about the blind mime and the nun?”
    Sumner fixed the half-drunken man with a determined look. “Bob, come this way a moment, would you please?”
    Bob’s forehead crinkled momentarily. He glanced at Adrienne for an explanation, shrugged and followed Sumner out to the living room, his wine glass dangling from his hand.
    “What’s up, bro?”
    “Bob,” Sumner said, “first, thank you for not bringing Scout. Second, I’ve decided we’re going to have a nice Christmas this year. And that means no shouting, no crass jokes about priests, nuns, or private parts, and no ugly stories about anyone in the family. Okay?”
    “What—”
    Sumner plucked the glass from his brother-in-law’s hand. “Third, you’ll be drinking coffee, tea, or soda for the rest of the day. You’ve obviously had enough alcohol already, and I don’t want you to get sloppy at dinner, the way you did last year.”
    “Steve!” It was half protest and half whine.
    “This is my house, Bob.” Sumner let the implications hang unspoken.
    Sobriety seeped back into Bob Bushnell’s features. He seemed to come to a belated recognition of his surroundings.
    “All right. Ruth made a comment about it before we left our place. Peace?”
    Sumner grinned. “Peace. Merry Christmas, Bob. Let’s rejoin the ladies.”
    Adrienne and Ruth were seated close together, talking in low, anxious tones. They stood as the men reentered the kitchen.
    “Is everything all right, Steve?” Adrienne’s hands were balled tightly, white at the knuckles.
    “Just fine, sweetie. When do you expect to serve dinner?”
    “About three.”
    “Good. Then we can make the seven o’clock Mass at Our Lady Of The Pines.” The children immediately began to shout their disapproval. Sumner glared at them, and they subsided sulkily. “Ruth, do you think you can get Michael and Susanna to behave for that long, or shall I have Michelle Stevens come over to babysit them while we enjoy our day?”
    The momentary silence was a thing of crystalline perfection.
    “You haven’t been to Mass in years,” Adrienne said. “Why—”
    “I was invited. Of course, I could go alone.” He peered at his wife from under his brows.
    “No, I’ll come. Ruth? Bob?”
    The Bushnells exchanged puzzled glances. Their children’s eyes were wide. “Dressed as we are?” Ruth said.
    Sumner smiled and nodded. “It’s not a problem for the management.” He moved up to Adrienne and took her hands in his own.
    “I love you, sweetie,” he murmured. “You look wonderful tonight. Thank you for everything.”
    “I love you too,” she whispered, barely audible.
    It was a start.

==<O>==

(Available for free, in all ebook formats, at Smashwords.com.)

It Probably Didn’t Occur On December 25...

...and it might not have been during the year we would today enumerate as 1 A.D...
...and there are many who say, most scornfully, that we are fools for believing that it happened at all...
...or for believing that there is an all-powerful Supreme Being who takes any slightest interest in Man...
...or that such a Being would permit His only begotten Son to be born as the son of a poor carpenter, and to suffer and die for our sakes...
...but I believe it:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

[The Gospel According To Luke, 2:1-19]

Choose according to the verdict of your hearts.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

A Grand And Evil Experiment Part 2: Tolerating The Intolerable

From the most excellent Crusader Rabbit:

AT first glance the connection between Sony last week pulling the comedy The Interview from our screens and the murders in Martin Place is not obvious. Yet both are explained by tolerating the intolerant, a deadly virus that has long infected the West....

This man [the Martin Place killer] was known for his anti-West hatred. He told us about it. He was on our radar. He was known to our security services, federal police and NSW police. On November 17, less than a month before he took 17 innocent people hostage, he posted online his hatred of the West, he wrote about his allegiance to ¬Islamic State. Still, we allowed Monis to roam free among us.

Tony Abbott is right to call Islamic State a death cult, but the question must be asked: is the West’s tolerance of the intolerant a death wish? And when many on the Left blindly refuse to identify terrorism, isn’t that furthering the death wish?

Clearly, the virus of collectivism isn’t confined to these shores.


It seems as if every imaginable group is being collectivized. No conceivable group is allowed internal heterogeneity; no individual is permitted to have individual characteristics. Worse yet, the collectivism virus is being interbred with another evil creature, to produce a still larger and more fearsome threat. The other monstrosity was developed from one of the least well understood of the West’s catalogue of virtues: tolerance.

Tolerance is so badly misunderstood today that even the brightest among us have difficulty separating out the kernel of validity from the chaff that’s obscured it. It’s not about accepting any and every sort of deviance from the norm. It certainly doesn’t mean reading news about murders committed by Muslim terrorists or black thugs and saying, “Well, their ways are their own, and we have to tolerate them.”

True tolerance is inseparably bound to the enforcement of a tolerable social order: i.e., to the universal and absolute intolerance of violence and unredressed injustice. Only within such a framework can true tolerance be practiced.

The prevalent incomprehension of tolerance is intertwined with the prevalent incomprehension of peace. In this regard I cherish a famous, highly penetrating statement from fantasy author Jo Walton:

“Peace means something different from ‘not fighting’. Those aren’t peace advocates, they’re ‘stop fighting’ advocates. Peace is an active and complex thing and sometimes fighting is part of what it takes to get it.”

You cannot have true peace without the “active and complex thing” we call justice. Perhaps Ann Barnhardt has put it best:

PEACE IS THE PERFECT APPLICATION OF GOD’S JUSTICE. Think about it. If “peace” is defined as merely the absence of war, or as “superficial societal quietude”, then North Korea is a bastion of peace.

(This is one of the rare times when you shouldn’t read the whole thing, as Miss Barnhardt, who is a valuable voice on many subjects, makes some idiotic statements that undermine her gemlike definition of peace. Well, no one is perfect.)

Reflect, if you will, on the impossibility of peace and tolerance in an order where there is no justice.


You might be asking yourself how the above segments bear on collectivism. Well, it’s very early in the morning, so perhaps I can be excused for a longer than usual circumnavigation of my subject.

Collectivism denies individuals their individual identities and characteristics. This is as true of collectivist rhetoric as it is of any collectivist ideology. When we speak of “Negroes,” or “Muslims,” or “the police,” we implicitly occlude the individual characteristics and behaviors of those whom we have subsumed under the label. We cannot speak of a group without doing so, at least transiently. And quite obviously, we cannot discuss group beliefs, opinions, or behavior without suppressing individual deviations from whatever norm we’ve attributed to the group.

Consider the two recent incidents being used to fan the flames of racialist hatred: Officer Darren Wilson’s self-defense shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the fatal outcome of the arrest of Eric Garner in New York. When we abstain from speaking of “Negroes” and “the police” as groups, is it not clear that:

  • Not all police are paragons of justice;
  • Not all police are demons of oppression or racism;
  • Not all Negroes are good and virtuous citizens;
  • Not all Negroes are thugs or drug-addled deviants.

I should certainly hope so. While police nationwide have a fairly good, well earned reputation for upholding the law without abusing the public, there have been, and will continue to be, police responsible for conduct of another sort. While the overwhelming majority of American Negroes are law-abiding citizens, there is a percentage that deliberately lives outside the law.

The same could be said for any group one cares to qualify, regardless of the defining characteristic. As I wrote some time ago:

[R]eality is filled with rough surfaces and jagged protrusions. Among the most distressing of these is the simple fact that collectivities, no matter how defined, exist mainly in one's mind. Internally, they can display upsetting variations and divergences...and they usually do.

How, then, shall we discuss the attainment of tolerance and peace, or the acceptability of various groups?


The late, great Clarence Carson, in his masterwork The American Tradition, wrote forcefully about the consequences of collectivism in law and public attitudes:

    [I]n many instances law enforcement officers have looked the other way while unions employed coercion and violence. Politicians have practiced a policy of divide and conquer on the American people. The Democratic Party has been most adept at this, though the Republicans have often attempted to compete. They have forged a party out of numerous minority groups, making promises and presumably providing favors for them. Many of these groups have become vested interests, legally and extra-legally.
    Since the above was written, the disorders have intensified and spread. Most recently, they have been extended to colleges, courtrooms, and in the streets surrounding political conventions. The pattern is repeating itself. The birds are coming home to roost. If the restraints are removed from group behavior by the grant of special privilege, if groups are empowered by law, if direct action is advanced because the end is “good,” if the means for the civilizing of groups are abandoned, compulsion and authoritarianism must be used to preserve order.

[From the 1970 edition.]

Clearly, the justice that makes peace possible and tolerance practicable requires that we refuse to tolerate the intolerable: i.e., that which contravenes justice. As I wrote in the previous piece, that is wholly incompatible with collectivism...and therefore wholly incompatible with any and every program emanating from the political Left.

How, you may ask, is this to be done?

As urgent as the subject is, I must set it aside for Friday at the earliest, for I’ve spotted a star in the East:

Merry Christmas, Gentle Reader. May the joy of Christ’s Nativity be yours throughout the Christmas season and the coming year.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

A Grand And Evil Experiment

In the era of sailing ships, the New World was difficult to reach. Those who desired to participate in the American experiment had to face weeks, sometimes months of hard living and a significant possibility of death at sea. The hardships and hazards diminished slowly as the Nineteenth Century progressed, by stages bringing us the steam engine, the steel-hulled ocean-going vessel, and ever more reliable methods of navigation and reference.

The involuntary human cargoes some of the sailing ships brought to these shores initiated a second, sociological experiment: a biracial society, at first composed of free white men and black slaves; later, of freed black slaves and the white free born.

That experiment, which looked hopeful up to recently (by historical measures), is looking rather grim today. But it doesn’t stand alone; it’s part of a larger pattern with even more ominous implications.


Earlier today I stumbled upon this bit of opinion from Anthony Bryan:

The black/white experiment has failed.

For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites. The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

This is not perfectly accurate. Racial discord is actually a modern development. It first became significant in the 1960s, tragically (and most ironically) after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Johnsonian “Great Society” programs nominally intended to help American Negroes rise to social and economic parity with American Caucasians. The surge of conscience-powered compassion among whites presented black race hustlers with an exploitable opportunity. They hastened to make full use of it.

Nevertheless, social and economic division along racial lines has been a constant feature of American society since Emancipation. American society has confronted the resulting challenges for a century and a half. Bryan summarizes his conclusions about this experiment rather starkly:

The experiment has failed. Not because of culture, or white privilege, or racism. The fundamental problem is that white people and black people are different. They differ intellectually and temperamentally. These differences result in permanent social incompatibility.

Bryan’s dismissal of “culture, or white privilege, or racism” as the causes for contemporary racial discord is difficult to refute. Indeed, the problems are rooted in a Grand and Evil Experiment: the stealthy substitution of a vicious, inherently divisive dogma in place of American individualism in the Christian tradition.


In commenting on several recent fabrications of racist incidents and similar expressions of bigotry, John Hayward discourses thus:

What all of these stories, and so many others, have in common is the assumption of bad faith by liberals, who claim they can read the minds of everyone from dinner-party guests to society at large and detect the dark secret impulses seething beneath every word and deed. The worst bad motives are assumed for every action, including something as harmless as a short woman asking a taller department-store patron to grab a box of detergent off the top shelf for her. If events that cannot be construed as social-justice crimes are not ready to hand, the liberal will simply invent them, transforming lies into Deeper Truth with the magical power of leftist ideology. We’re even presumed guilty of crimes no one actually committed, most notably the horrible “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually happens after Muslim terrorists commit atrocities.

This presumption of guilt is absolutely crucial to collectivism. The Left must teach its subjects to think of themselves as criminals. That’s the only way law-abiding people will endure levels of coercive power that would normally require specific accusations, a fair trial, and the possibility of appeals. Social-justice “crimes” can be prosecuted without any of those things. There is no appeal from the sentence, and no statute of limitations on the crimes, as any left-winger who thinks today’s American citizens need to suffer for the historical offense of slavery will be happy to explain to you. There’s no evidence you can present in your defense, for the Left has read your mind, and knows better than you what demons lurk in its recesses.

Gentle Reader, it cannot be put better than that.

Collectivism – the doctrine that rights and responsibilities adhere not to individuals, but to groups – is a gospel of unending strife. But the ordinary man cannot be moved to take part in such strife without having something to blame on “the Other.” So Negroes must imagine Caucasians to be the source of their problems with crime and lack of economic advancement; women must conceive of men as their oppressors; “the young” must blame “the old” for their struggles at getting employment; and so forth.

Note that just as Anthony Bryan states that “white people and black people are different,” so also are men and women different. So also are the young and the old different. So also are urbanites and suburbanites different, Northerners and Southerners different, Christians and Jews different, et cetera ad nauseam infinitam. Indeed, every individual differs from every other, in innumerable ways. It’s the factual soil in which individualism is rooted: You are unique, with a unique and irreplaceable soul; therefore, only you are responsible for your destiny.

Some differences matter more than others. Some are contextual and mutable, while others are innate and permanent. Some can be accommodated and harmonized; others are immiscible, requiring separation. They exist beyond our opinions and despite our preferences; indeed, they can be critical to the survival of both individuals and nations. But as long as we cleave to the individualist premise that each of us is alone responsible for himself, we can navigate among our differences, making use of the useful ones, coping with the ones that cause difficulties, and avoiding the ones that cause friction.

The substitution of the collectivist premise permits evil minded persons to create discord. If we can be induced to see John Passerby not as an arbitrary individual with his own priorities and obligations, but as black, or female, or Jewish, we can be trained to fear him...and to hate him.


Collectivist hustlers don’t just strive to herd the rest of us into mutually hostile groups. They also tend to congregate with one another:

Just check out Rev. Al’s involvement in the incident at Freddy’s Fashion Mart: 7 dead, and the Crown Heights Riots: 2 dead. Video Tale of Al Sharpton

Obama’s had “Sharpy” to the White House more than 60 times. Recently Al was seated right next to Vice President Joe Biden. The VP, once widely quoted as saying paying taxes was “patriotic” had no problem sitting next to, and having his picture taken, with a guy who owes $4.5 million to “Uncle Joe’s” precious government.

When tensions and violence were reaching dangerous levels Barack was equally at ease having this proven racial provocateur, and fellow community organizer, acting very publicly as his advisor. Sharpton’s actions fit right in with the president’s own history of provocatively thrusting himself into incidents that were within the purview of local law enforcement. Cambridge police acted “stupidly”. If he had a son, “he’d look like Trayvon” Martin.

And now Obama joins with Attorney Eric Holder in calling into question the fairness of America’s long standing Grand Jury System. Holder, the same fellow, who refused to pursue a case against 3 members of the New Black Panthers caught on video tape wielding a club outside a polling place in Philadelphia, is openly critical of the Staten Island jury, despite the fact he has virtually no access to 60 pieces of evidence and the testimony of 50 witnesses.

Is it because no one else will tolerate them? Perhaps, but it seems more likely that they need to consult and coordinate with one another to make their experimental techniques effective. Note also that collectivists willingly congregate across group lines. The Left makes room for every sort of collectivism. Its activists get along quite well with one another...until the moment one group starts to prosper at the expense of another, of course.

If you’re having bloody fantasies about throwing grenades into certain tightly packed convention halls, you’re not alone.


The collectivist premise has completely permeated American society. Hardly a day goes by when the news media lack all indication of its effects upon us. Indeed, the media are instrumental in the promotion of the collectivist premise. Its barons eagerly promote stories that exacerbate inter-group tensions, for a simple reason: strife sells newspapers and advertising.

A return to the individualist premise wouldn’t automatically solve all our society’s problems. It isn’t sufficient, though it is necessary. As I said earlier, some of the differences among us are immiscible. They will eventually require certain groups to be separated from the main mass. But individualism as the central principle of law and social order is an absolute necessity.

It wasn’t “white racism” that killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner.
It isn’t “patriarchal oppression” that denies women the fulfillment of their have-it-all ambitions.
It isn’t a bunch of evil old folks determined to control everything that’s caused the plague of youth unemployment.

It’s time to end the Grand and Evil Experiment.

Monday, December 22, 2014

On Monarchs And Monarchy

A gentle reminder:

    It was a plain weapon, not one you'd expect to see in the hand of a king. There was only the barest tracing on the faintly curved blade. The guard bell was a plain steel basket, without ornamentation. The hilt was a seven inch length of oak, darkened with age but firm to the touch. There was only a hint of a pommel, a slight swell of the hilt at its very end.
    "What is this?"
    "A sword. Your sword."
    A hint of alarm compressed his eyes. "What do you expect me to do with it?"
    I shrugged. "Whatever you think appropriate. But a king should have a sword. By the way," I said, "it was first worn by Louis the Ninth of France when he was the Dauphin, though he set it aside for a useless jeweled monstrosity when he ascended the throne."
    Time braked to a stop as confusion spun his thoughts.
    "I don't know how to use it," he murmured.
    "Easily fixed. I do."
    "But why, Malcolm?"
    I stepped back, turned a little away from those pleading eyes.
    "Like it or not, you're a king. You don't know what that means yet. You haven't a sense for the scope of it. But you must learn. Your life, and the lives of many others, will turn on how well you learn it." I paused and gathered my forces. "What is a king, Louis?"
    He stood there with the sword dangling from his hand. "A ruler. A leader. A warlord."
    "More. All of that, but more. The sword is an ancient symbol for justice. Back when the function of nobility was better understood, a king never sat his throne without his sword to hand. If he was to treat with the envoy of another king, it would be at his side. If he was to dispense justice, it would be across his knees. Why do you suppose that was, Louis?"
    He stood silent for a few seconds.
    "Symbolic of the force at his command, I guess."
    I shook my head gently.
    "Not just symbolic. A true king, whose throne belonged to him by more than the right of inheritance, led his own troops and slew malefactors by his own hand. The sword was a reminder of the privilege of wielding force, but it was there to be used as well."
    His hands clenched and unclenched in time to his thoughts. I knew what they had to be.
    "The age of kings is far behind us, Malcolm."
    "It never ended. Men worthy of the role became too few to maintain the institution."
    "And I'm...worthy?"
    If he wasn't, then no worthy man had ever lived, but I couldn't tell him that.
    "There's a gulf running through the world, Louis. On one side are the commoners, the little men who bear tools, tend their gardens, and keep the world running. On the other are the nobles, who see far and dare much, and sometimes risk all they have, that the realm be preserved and the commoner continue undisturbed in his portion. There's no shortage of either, except for the highest of the nobles, the men of unbreakable will and moral vision, for whom justice is a commitment deeper than life itself."
    His face had begun to twitch. He'd heard all he could stand to hear, and perhaps more. I decided to cap the pressure.
    "Kings have refused their crowns many times, Louis. You might do as much, though it would sadden me to see it. But you could break that sword over your knee, change your name, and run ten thousand miles to hide where no one could know you, and it wouldn't lessen what you are and were born to be." I gestured at the sword. "Keep it near you."

If there were men worthy of being kings, monarchy would be preferable to all other political forms. The problem is as Malcolm Loughlin stated: such men are very few.

Consider Veronica Roth’s novel Divergent, in which she placed political power in the hands of the “Selfless” caste: persons wholly unconcerned with personal gain. They live as if they’d taken vows of poverty and are serious about them. That caste’s members are assigned to it by a supposedly objective testing process...but what if the test could be corrupted, or the testers suborned?

Hereditary monarchy has even more problems, of course. There is no solution, as any “impersonal” method of selecting a monarch is as vulnerable as democratic electoral politics.

When it comes to governmental systems, we are faced with a choice of evils. More, every system comes with an ironclad guarantee: whichever one we select, given time enough it will wholly succumb to evil. The dynamic of power-seeking – i.e., that the most unscrupulous and ruthless of our species, who value power above all other things, will seek it most ardently and will ultimately win it – is implicit in any system that legitimizes and allocates coercive power.

Of course, there’s always the course of choosing none of them. But when will Man be ready to try that degree of freedom? Is there any chance of it happening before the Second Coming?

Purely academic question.

Does this trajectory of federal borrowing look remotely sustainable to you?[1]


Notes
[1] "Opportunity Squandered: We Blew It." By Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds, 7/3/13.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Further Thoughts On The Bush III Candidacy

A republic in which executive and legislative authority are conferred by popular election has several characteristic weaknesses. Perhaps the worst of these is its susceptibility to glamor and its bastard cousin demagoguery.

We confronted a clear case of political glamor in 1960, when John F. Kennedy, despite strong evidence that Democrat machines in Illinois and Texas had stolen the election for him, was elevated to the presidency. The electorate, charmed by the boyish Kennedy and his beautiful wife, sat still for it. Richard Nixon, who by rights should have been elected, decided not to unleash a tumult by raising a row over it. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination and the ascent of the utterly unglamorous Lyndon Johnson seemed to put the matter beyond question.

The Kennedy glamor might have given us a second Kennedy presidency with the candidacy of younger brother Robert, were it not for his assassination in Los Angeles, just after his successful California primary campaign. Fortunately Edward Kennedy’s attempt to follow his brothers’ tracks was derailed by the Chappaquiddick incident, forever barring higher office than United States Senator to him. Yet Ted Kennedy acquired wildly disproportionate influence in national politics that lasted until the day he died. Indeed, when Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat thus vacated, it caused widespread consternation that “Kennedy’s seat” should be occupied by a Republican.

The Bush presidencies haven’t exhibited the glamor associated with the Kennedy family. Yet there’s an important similarity there: the promotion of a specific political family as a preferred source of persons fit for high office. That sort of dynastic succession is not unprecedented: it first occurred with John Adams and John Quincy Adams, early in the history of the nation. But never before have we had to ponder the possibility a father and two of his sons in the Oval Office. It’s causing frowns and misgivings even among those whom Jeb Bush’s articulated policy stances strike as perfectly congenial.


“I smell a rat. It squints toward monarchy.” – Patrick Henry

Henry, the most impassioned, most gifted orator of the Founding Era, disliked the proposed Constitution specifically because of the office of president, which he believed would gradually absorb powers never intended for a single man’s hand. He saw in the Constitutional design a well-concealed plot to strip the sovereign states of their latitude, such that they would eventually become mere administrative subdivisions subservient to Washington’s policy dictates. The presidency, in his view, was the linchpin of that plot: the locus at which all power would eventually be concentrated.

Whether or not he was correct in positing a conspiracy to create an American monarchy, Patrick Henry accurately predicted the process that followed the ratification of the Constitution. He was more foresighted than any other scholar of his time – or afterward – proved to be.

In our time, the president has been demonstrated to wield de facto powers the Founders probably did not intend. The Constitution’s separation of powers appears to prevent such a concentration of power in the White House. Indeed, the powers allocated to the president are very few and stringently defined. They include none of the pseudo-authorities presidents have wielded since the Roosevelts.

The acceptance of usurped authority in the presidency and the creation of an immense, unaccountable bureaucracy that exercises executive, legislative, and judicial powers nowhere contemplated in the Constitution have nullified the Founders’ design. At this time, there is no longer an effective separation of the powers of the federal government. More, the immense glamor of the presidency combined with the powers exercised by federal bureaucrats has made it difficult at best for the state governments to resist violations of the Tenth Amendment: i.e., usurpations of powers reserved to the states. All effective power to direct those immense forces lies in the hands of one man: the current occupant of the Oval Office.

We cannot get any closer to an actual monarchy without explicitly declaring one.


If you’re unaware of the Constantian Society, it’s worth your time to become acquainted with it. The Constantians are the world’s last promoters of monarchy as the most preferable form of government. Their arguments are not absurd. Indeed, in our time, when elected governments do more harm and villainy than any king ever managed in the history of Man, the Constantians have important points to make:

Modern experience shows that kings generally rule better, not worse, than do presidents, due to the practical circumstance that a king is born to his office, is trained all his life to be king. A president must spend half his time learning his job, the other half preparing for the next election in an attempt to keep that job. His loyalty is to many sometimes competing constituencies all of whom combine to help him get elected. The king is a genuine professional, an expert in state craft. His constituency is his whole nation, and he serves that constituency with polished professionalism. As Archduke Otto observes, in all walks of life the fully qualified, trained expert is rated more highly than the gifted amateur; knowledge and experience may often outweigh sheer ambition.

Monarchy provides the stability which is essential to the solution of major problems. In a republic, whoever is in office must achieve a positive success in the shortest possible time, for otherwise he will not be re-elected. This urgent need, the constant spectre of re-election, leads to short-term policies which cannot cope with problems of worldwide scope. A king faces no elections, and is able to make long-term plans and policies, for the duration of his reign, which is his lifetime, and for the hereditary succession. A monarch, too, through the vestiges of that misunderstood Divine Right and because of his symbolic paternal role, faces a higher responsibility than a professional politician; Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia told the Society in an interview, "The duty of a king or of a prince worthy of the name consists of remaining true, under all circumstances, to the noblest and most legitimate ideals of the nation to which he belongs."

The justification of the hereditary succession is not only in the professional upbringing of the future king, not only in the continuity of a line, although these are important factors, but in the fact that an hereditary ruler does not owe his position to any particular social or interest group, but rather to divine will alone. This is the meaning of "by the Grace of God" - the ruler is not an exceptional person, but rather a person with an exceptional burden, extraordinary obligations, a great task. The formula "by the Grace of God" is a constant reminder to the sovereign that an accident of birth, and not his own merits, was responsible for his position, and he "must prove his fitness by ceaseless efforts in the cause of justice," as Archduke Otto says. John Adams, one of the redoubtable Founding Fathers of the American republic, said that "Mankind have not yet discovered any remedy against irresistible corruption in elections to offices of great power and profit but making them hereditary."

A king is much freer than a president, in that he is not tied to any party, as a republican leader invariably is. The king does not owe his position to a body of voters or to the support of powerful groups; the office of a royal ruler is based on higher law, his power derives from a transcendental source, whereas a president is always under someone's very earthly debt. It is probably impossible to become the president of a republic without immense financial and organizational support of certain groups, and a president bears too heavy an obligation to those who really put him in office. A president is not truly president of all the people, regardless of what the electorate may think, for he is president first of all the groups which enabled him to attain office. There is a very real and constant danger that a republic will cease to safeguard the interests and rights of all citizens when the highest positions become the privileged domains of the groups which placed a president in office.

There’s some justice in that. Surely we have seen elections steadily converted from sober consideration of the characters, intellects, and convictions of candidates to outright slander-fests in which each contestant does his best to ruin his opponents’ images. Surely we have experienced enough deceit, corruption, graft, porkbarreling, unconcealed patronage, and general skullduggery by elected officials to have been shorn of our illusions that an election will reliably choose the best man for a post. Yet our Constitution and our traditions have foreclosed the monarchical alternative. Besides, there’s the characteristic vulnerability of monarchies to deal with:

The greatest danger of the monarchical system is that an incompetent might succeed to the throne. This danger, however, is not restricted to monarchies, for incompetents and worse (consider Warren Harding, Adolf Hitler, Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein) have been popularly chosen or otherwise come to power in republics. During the Middle Ages, it was always possible to replace an unsuitable successor with a more suitable one, and the system has not entirely disappeared: King Saud of Saudi Arabia was essentially deposed by his family, and replaced by his eminently capable brother, Faisal. Any decision as to the suitability and competence of a successor by primogeniture should preferably be left to a dynastic tribunal, which would be empowered to change the order of succession, if necessary, or to require a regency.

Given that pithy observation, what American family would be qualified to assume royal status?


“Do you favour a change of dynasty, Thomas? Do you think two Tudors are sufficient?” – Cardinal Wolsey, in Robert Bolt’s screenplay for A Man For All Seasons

It is a multiply confirmed historical fact that a group that acquires power will struggle with all its might to retain it. When it reaches a certain continuity in power, the only effective method for its removal is bloodshed. Whether the group is a political party, an oligarchy of unrelated individuals, or a family bound by blood relations is utterly irrelevant.

At this time, we have the unprecedented spectacle of a third member of a prominent American family presenting himself to the nation as a candidate for president. That’s not a bid for royal status for the Bush clan...that is, not quite...but it comes pretty close. But if we reflect upon the Bush I and Bush II presidencies, would we choose their clan for our American royalty?

Paterfamilias George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush I) proved unreliable in office. His most memorable default was reneging on his promise not to permit a tax increase. Yet there were several other defections from the Reaganite positions he had promised the electorate he would maintain.

George Walker Bush (Bush II) began well and ended poorly. Though the military campaigns he begin in Afghanistan and Iraq began brilliantly, both deteriorated under the pernicious influence of “nation building” ideas absolutely incompatible with Middle Eastern cultures. The handoff of those campaigns to Barack Hussein Obama has merely dramatized the extent to which we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, essentially by refusing to accept the victory we had won as the proper terminus to our armed expeditions. The rest of Bush II’s tenure was characterized by excessive deference to the Left under the guise of “compromise” and “working together.” Even his foreign policy toward the increasingly threatening regime of Vladimir Putin was far too trusting.

Beyond all question, Bushes I and II are fine people. There have hardly been any presidents personally more admirable than Bush II. But theirs is an outlook and a character best suited to wielding their individual and family resources only, not those of the nation. Let them start foundations, flack for noble causes, and exhort us to greater charity and reverence. They must not be permitted to become the founders of an American royal house.

The Constantian argument could well be correct; I admit to being torn over it. Yet only two nations – post-revolutionary France and post-Franco Spain have attempted the selection of a clan to act as their royalty. It’s a problem our republic has never faced...nor, given the attitudes and generally low character of our politicians, their families, and their hangers-on, would we want to face it any time soon.

The Bushes, though they might be the best of the available alternatives, are not suitable monarchs for these United States.

Just Say No...To Jeb.

Plain Speaking Dept.

Sometimes, there’s simply nothing for me to add:

I didn't do one of these today, but in light of the murder of two NYPD officers, Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, I thought I'd bring up one quick concept that too many people tend to forget or understandably shy away from.

This is what they do.

The political left in this country is comprised primarily of people who have a background as, or the mindset of, "community organizers". The job of a community organizer is to make things worse. They are the ones throwing gasoline on the fire and rubbing salt in the wounds. Their job is to sew turmoil, discord and hate. They work to prevent accord from being reached, to end cooperation between peoples and to head off agreement. They are professional shit stirrers.

Why?

Ideologically, their reason is to destroy western civilization so that it can be replaced with a collectivist Utopia. That's great and all, but it's kind of fuzzy. Personally, however, their motivation is pure personal profit. There's not a single one of these sons of bitches that doesn't get rich ripping the scabs off of wounds, and in that lies the ultimate irony. They decry the capitalist and free marketeer as promoting a system based upon the assumption that people act from in own self interest, while at the same time demonstrating all of the traits that they condemn, proving that the capitalist was right in the first place. Human nature is human nature. None of this should surprise anyone who is a student of history, yet somehow it always does.

A peaceful, prosperous community or nation does not need community organizers. Community organizers, on the other hand, can't function in a peaceful, prosperous nation, so they are always, ALWAYS, striving to destroy it.

None of this is new, or surprising. We just need to remember who these people are.

Word.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Unpleasant Necessities Dept.

It saddens me to need to take up cudgels against a stance taken by a dear friend. Yet intellectual honesty and loyalty to my own convictions has made it necessary.

Before going any further, please read this piece at Adrienne’s Corner. Settle yourself and your own opinions about the incident described and the reactions to it you’ve just read.

I hold no brief for Alex Jones – in fact, I’ve never read his site or his writings – so I’m coming at this without any personal allegiances to defend. My quarrel is over:

  1. Local police departments possessing and deploying military-grade hardware that private citizens are forbidden to have;
  2. A law enforcement officer disparaging “well armed” “constitutionalists” to an arbitrary audience;
  3. Treating the rule of law, a critically important and almost wholly misunderstood principle of ethical and constitutional theory, as if it requires each of us to submit to any and every “law” some legislature hurls at us without resistance.

In my opinion, all three of the above matters are despicable. If what I’ve read here has been accurately reported, then this sheriff has displayed an unacceptable degree of contempt for one of the most important developments of our time: the formation of militias of private citizens in the hope of curbing the rampant overreaching and lawlessness that characterizes contemporary American governments.

The MRAP vehicle itself is of little concern, but we may legitimately ask: What other weapons of war, forbidden by “law” to the general public, are in the hands of the Spokane police department? Is it not clear that the whole point of the Second Amendment is to insure that citizens must always be able to arm themselves well enough to resist tyranny – that the people shall always be capable of putting down an abusive government? Yet there are a myriad “laws” that forbid the general public to own the very weapons of war being distributed to local police!

As to this deputy sheriff who refers offhandedly to “well armed” “constitutionalists” as a threat to him and his, that’s what they’re supposed to be: A force that can punish tyranny, that can react to abuses by the organs of the State with sufficient power to redress officially perpetrated injustice! If they were no threat, what other influence would exist to curb the excesses of agents of the State? What point would there be to citizen ownership of weaponry? Deer hunting? Alongside that, a man whose overriding concern is his personal safety does not deserve to wear a badge of office – especially not that of a lawman.

Finally, that paramount, widely misunderstood conception of American governance: the rule of law: That principle does not mean that we must all submit meekly to whatever “laws” are imposed upon us. Consider the Fugitive Slave Act for one example; consider New York’s “SAFE” Act for another. It means that agents of the State are compelled to obey the laws to the same extent as the citizenry – that a “law” that creates a legal distinction between private citizens and government agents is therefore invalid. That’s constitutional theory in a nutshell – the very reason we have a Constitution in the first place!

The critical question is and has always been:

Does an agent of the State have the privilege of breaking one law to enforce another, without penalty?

Because if he does:

  • The slaughter of Randy Weaver’s family was perfectly acceptable;
  • The slaughter of the Branch Davidians in Waco was perfectly acceptable;
  • The murder of John Singer to enforce a law against home schooling was perfectly acceptable;
  • Indeed, any deed by any agent of the State, at any time and place and under the color of any “law” whatsoever, is perfectly acceptable; the agent cannot be penalized for it.

Now, as to some of the other observations made in support of this sheriff and his deputies:

  • Yes, it is unwise to confuse local law enforcement with the federal government: You are in more danger from a government near to you than from one far away.
  • Concerning “psychotic nutjob Alex Jones:” As I said, I hold no brief for the man and have no acquaintance with his writings. But remember always that the strengths and weaknesses of the speaker cannot be transferred uncritically to the subjects and arguments he addresses. (Alternately, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day.”) It is essential to divorce arguments and observations from the personalities of those who make them.
  • Having joined (or not) the military, a police force, or any other agency of the State has no bearing on one’s rights as a citizen, nor on the freedoms to which he is entitled. Inversely: Does honorable military service or voluntarism confer extra rights on an individual? Would you excuse a man of a serious crime, for example armed robbery, on the grounds that he had a sterling record in the military and was a volunteer to the local fire department?
  • The term “right-wing fringe lunatics” is merely a slander of unnamed persons whose stances could well be exactly the one stated here. It is not a refutation of that stance.
  • That other lands suffer even worse governments, and even worse abuses, is irrelevant to abuses of power here in the United States. Foreign tyranny cannot excuse the excesses and lawlessness of our own. If it were so, we would be required to reform the entire world before acting on events in our own domain.

Food for thought.

UPDATE: Here's still more on the subject from Eowyn.

Friday, December 19, 2014

Is Breitbart Under Attack?

Why are there 2700-plus comments – in many suspicious cases, exactly 2707 -- at nearly every post at Breitbart.com today?

Assorted

1. Dynasties

The last nine GOP presidential tickets:

  • 1980: Reagan-Bush
  • 1984: Reagan-Bush
  • 1988: Bush-Quayle
  • 1992: Bush-Quayle
  • 1996: Dole-Kemp
  • 2000: Bush-Cheney
  • 2004: Bush-Cheney
  • 2008: McCain-Palin
  • 2012: Romney-Ryan

And we might soon face a tenth ticket with a Bush on it. Does it sound to you as if a single family just might have undue influence over the Republican Party?

Yo, GOP strategists and kingmakers: This is America. We're opposed to handing out positions on the basis of inheritance or family connections. If you need that explained in any greater detail, there's an operating manual you might want to consult.


2. Students And Masters

The recent threats from North Korea over the aborted release of The Interview are not a datum in a vacuum. Note how assiduously the Left has used threats of every sort to impede entertainment they disapprove (e.g., The Passion of the Christ), to interfere with speakers they want silenced, and to obstruct the mature, objective discussion of any and every subject they want suppressed.

That the monsters who rule North Korea, the last bastion of uber-Stalinism on Earth, should have learned a tactic from our own domestic traitors is only surprising in that we would have expected the lesson to flow in the other direction.


3. Social Controversies Placed Beyond Discussion

We’re not permitted even to discuss same-sex marriage any more:

Marquette University has suspended with pay and barred from campus the tenured professor who criticized a graduate student instructor in a personal blog, pending an investigation into his conduct.

John McAdams, an associate professor of political science at Marquette, last month wrote a controversial blog post accusing a teaching assistant in philosophy of shutting down a classroom conversation on gay marriage based on her own political beliefs. He based the post on a recording secretly made by a disgruntled student who wished that the instructor, Cheryl Abbate, had spent more time on the topic of gay marriage, which the student opposed. McAdams said Abbate, in not allowing a prolonged conversation about gay marriage, was “using a tactic typical among liberals,” in which opinions they disagree with “are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.”

Please read the whole thing. Also, please read McAdams’s blog post. Finally, reflect on the use of the word “controversial” in describing the blog post. Isn’t controversy the very meat and drink of academic debate? Isn’t that what the faculty and students are there to immerse themselves in?

Incidentally, Marquette is a Catholic university, run by Jesuits. So Miss Abbate’s decree that same-sex marriage cannot be discussed in a Marquette classroom is equivalent to expelling Catholic doctrine from a Catholic institution.

I shan’t speak for you, Gentle Reader, but this makes me want to lock and load.


4. The Campus “Rape Culture”

If the previous topic didn’t raise the hair on your neck, this one should do the trick:

The latest feminist obsession with rape has reached the point where false accusations are now being thrown around loosely. It has resulted in a negative stigma toward men on college campuses, and destroyed the lives of those falsely accused. Fortunately, one man videotaped his entire encounter with a woman who wrongly accused him, proving her wrong and probably saving him from arrest and prosecution.

Fly Height posted the video, showing a disheveled looking woman who appears to be high and trespassing in a man’s room. She cries out, “Don’t touch me, rape, he wants to rape me! Help me!” The startled man responds back, “stop hitting me lady.” With the door wide open and her boyfriend standing next to her, she continues, “I promise I won’t squeal on you anymore … I’ll do anything you want!” She then bangs on his door, yelling, “I was trying to get out of your room, you won’t let me.” The victim asks her repeatedly, “Please call the cops and get out of my room.”

Another man, possibly a landlord, approaches her as she finally leaves the man’s place, sympathetically taking her side. But it won’t matter, all the evidence is preserved on video.

With those accused of rape being treated as guilty until proven innocent, unscrupulous women poised to gain materially from making false accusations, and a loud chorus of feminist voices demanding that we never doubt such an accuser, what else could we have expected? Incentives matter — and they don’t stop operating because we want them to.

Add to that observation the slander being laid upon young college men about a “campus rape epidemic.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics has released figures that utterly contradict the shrieking harridans of the Left so anxious to promote women’s fear of men. The harridans’ response? The statistics are irrelevant! Always believe the accuser! Not to do so constitutes “blaming the victim” and makes one a “rape apologist!”

Watch the video of this incident and decide for yourselves: Are our college campuses truly suffering a “rape epidemic,” or are young women merely following the incentives the law and the gender-war feminist harridans have created around us?


5. How Dare You Be...A Republican?

Academia isn’t just hostile to men:

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!

May “seem” biased -- ?? Well, perhaps. Just possibly. What do you think, Gentle Reader?

It’s been known for a long while that openly right-of-center political views can obstruct an academic’s career. Indeed, they can result in his not being employable, regardless of his scholarly credentials. Ask Townhall.com’s Mike Adams about his experiences.

This subject has a personal resonance for me. I left academia for these reasons, among others. Indeed, I declined an opportunity to return, this time to study economics, because of ideological harassment.

Young men are showing an increasing, entirely rational preference for courses through life that don’t involve enduring a term at some “institution of higher learning.” The above attitude, added to the fanatical behavior of so many campus “activists” and the increasing hostility of young college women, provides all the explanation anyone should need.

The Greatest Disinformation Campaign of All Time.

Is the fascination with Nazis in Western culture a product of natural interest, or is it an unspoken pact by novelists and filmmakers to obscure the greater atrocities committed by the Soviets -- most notably under Stalin, who ruled in the same era as Hitler?

A recent documentary on the Turner Classic Movie cable channel illustrated the point. Said the commentators, when all else fails in selecting a villain, make Nazis the sinister evil force and success is assured. Yet the idea to create Soviet villains never appears to occur to novelists and filmmakers, except in spy thrillers where each side is usually defined as morally equivalent.[1]

Mr. Reeves's 2009 article is an excellent elucidation of the bizarre unwillingness of the West to name names and play the raw nerve of communist bestiality like a ukulele. There are 10 tons of Hollywood movies about satanic Nazis, parodies of actual humans, but rare is the movie about the Gulag, the Red Terror, the Cheka, or Chinese, Khmer Rouge, N. Korean, or, inter alia, Cuban horror. As the Nazis are trolls who live under bridges, so communists are saints with commendable goals and occasional errors (regrettable) of implementation. In fact, no enemy a centimeter or more to the right of Van Jones or Bill Ayers is anything less than some leftist caricature of a human – a racist, homophobe, islamophobe, despoiler, denier, misogynist, ape replica. It's the leftist way – straight to the ad hominy.

All in favor of The Narrative – socialism good; white, Western civilization bad.

One illustration of Reeves's point is the movie made of Tom Clancy's novel The Sum of All Fears. In the book, the villains with their hands on a nuclear device are Islamic Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorists aided by a commie East German. In the movie, the guys with their hands on the device are white supremacist, neo-Nazis. In popular entertainment, villains are transformed from Arab terrorists and communists to neo-Nazis. Mission accomplished.

Arab and cold-blooded, radical, leftist terrorists such as the Weather Underground, the Red Brigades, and the Baader-Meinhof gang abounded during the Cold War and all that was left of National Socialism was a smoking hole in the ground but, no, the focus of the filmmakers was on the spawn of the long-vanquished Hitler. To borrow from Chesterton, alive-dead Nazis and the steroid-fueled campaign to deflect attention from the horrendous crimes of the left are as "fresh as the first flowers."

The whole Chesterton's quote is worth reading:

There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers.
Thus, one has to admire Mr. Reeves for laying his finger directly on the most vulnerable part of the current ultra-leftist campaign to disassemble the West. There is nothing decent, noble, rational, or true about socialism. It is founded on lies, envy, and theft and appeals to the infantile side of men who desire to be taken care of and to accomplish that by taking from their productive brothers. And it is alive and well today with powerful, well-placed advocates.

Thus, also not to be missed is his revelation that the flagship publication of liberals in America, The New Republic, was published from 1948 to 1956 by a communist agent.

And, of course, Diana West must be cited for her courageous and explosive book, American Betrayal, wherein are discussed the one thing that liberals, socialists, communist, and Muslim subversives positively do not want you ever to hear about, to wit, the infiltration of American society and government by communist agents of influence, the deadly effect they had on American policy and society, and the ominous parallel success at infiltration and influence on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

When John Boehner swoons over bipartisan agreements with the Donks, you can be sure he has none of this in mind. No. No church skunk. No corpse in the pool. Just patriots and constitutionalists as far as the eye can see. His pals.

Nomesane?

Notes
[1] "Nazis And Commies." By Bernie Reeves, American Thinker, 10/11/09.