Commitment

     It’s not that long ago that the several states operated insane asylums to which one could be committed – involuntarily confined for an indefinite period – through a fairly casual procedure. Actually, such facilities still exist, though they’re fewer. So do the commitment procedures, but the psychiatrists have grown considerably more reluctant to use them.

     Correlate the rate of commitments with the population trend among the “homeless.” Draw your own conclusions. The causal forces might not be determinative. But don’t imagine that there’s no relation between them.

---

     The misuses and abuses of involuntary commitment are well documented. Here’s one from 2011:

     My friend had been communicating with a mental health professional. He mentioned suicide, but had never harmed himself, made no mention of a plan, and closed the message with: "But I have to go to work. I'll call you later." Hardly seems like an emergency to me though of course I'm no expert.

     Pursuant to NY Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27, an ambulance appeared at his home and took him to an emergency room. His room was strikingly uncomfortable due to the removal of any object he might use to kill himself. While there he was lied to repeatedly by the staff. They lied to me too. They threatened him, and me. They intimidated him and discouraged him from exercising his right to a hearing. They disregarded the laws requiring them to give him proper notice of his rights....

     If you are committed against your will, you do not get read a Miranda warning and you do not have the same right to remain silent. The hospital is required to provide you with written notice of your rights and to post them conspicuously. In practice if they do so the notice is buried among other papers and there is no requirement that they make sure you understand your rights. If you choose to remain silent, your silence will be deemed a lack of cooperation with their evaluation and treatment, and will be used against you in any hearing. My friend did not receive any written notice. When I visited the rights were not posted anywhere I'd call conspicuous - I couldn't find them and I looked for them. There were places where things were posted conspicuously and the relevant rights were not there.

     If you are arrested you have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. You are notified of this as part of the Miranda warning. Once you request an attorney, they can't question you without your attorney present.

     In involuntary commitment, there is no clear right to an attorney. There are some requirements that the Mental Hygiene Legal Service be notified and they will serve, in a sense, as your public defender. In practice you don't get to see them for a while.

     I tried to assist my friend. Hospital staff limited my access to him. They refused to allow me to be present while he was questioned.

     When my friend submitted his written request for a hearing, one of the hospital psychiatrists got right in his face and yelled at him. This treatment was not therapeutic.

     The above comes from an Albany defense lawyer. Clearly, he saw a great gulf between the rights and procedures afforded to one accused of a crime and those afforded to one deemed “a danger to himself or others.” As it happens, New York law on the subject makes plain that this is supposed to be the case:

     Section 9.27(b) describes 11 categories of persons who may request or submit an application for involuntary commitment of an individual. The list includes any person that lives with the allegedly mentally ill person, close family members, the court, the supervisor of a correctional facility, a treating psychiatrist and other professionals familiar with the individual’s lifestyle and behavior patterns. In order to be considered, the request must include written statements regarding the facts surrounding reasons for the request.

     After the request is submitted, a person may be involuntarily committed if:

• Two physicians agree and present documentation that the person has a mental illness necessitating inpatient care and treatment;
• The individual’s judgment is so impaired that he cannot understand the need for care and treatment;
• He poses a substantial threat of harm to himself or others due to his mental illness, which may include the inability to meet his needs for food, shelter, clothing, and health care or dangerous conduct and noncompliance with mental health treatment programs.

     The laws of the other forty-nine states are similar. If this isn’t a situation ready-made for massive abuses, I can’t imagine how to design one. And revelations of abuses of these systems have sufficiently embarrassed America’s “mental health professionals” to make them far more reluctant to engage in involuntary commitments than they were previously.

     But note the last condition listed immediately above: “[if] He poses a substantial threat of harm to himself or others due to his mental illness, which may include the inability to meet his needs for food, shelter, clothing, and health care or dangerous conduct and noncompliance with mental health treatment programs.” That encloses the “homeless” like a tent – something few of them possess.

     Once again: Draw your own conclusions.

---

     Abuses of the commitment laws were made public in the Seventies to great public indignation. The notion that “a close family member” could say something to “a mental health professional” that might result in one’s involuntary and indefinite confinement appalled huge numbers of Americans (which might say as much about the state of our family relations as anything else). Though changes in the commitment laws and the procedures they specify were generally few and modest, psychiatrists became steadily more reluctant to initiate the process. Insane asylums (by whatever euphemism they were named) closed down in droves.

     One consequence was a tide of releases of the confined back onto the streets. Some of those persons had nowhere else to go.

     Have a few thoughts from CBD at Ace of Spades HQ, about the recent death of a homeless woman:

     What is ironic is that the majority (probably all) of the people involved and interviewed probably support the deinstitutionalization craze that has gripped America since the 1970s. I wonder whether a firm public policy of forced commitment would have helped this woman. My suspicion is that it would have. That is not to say that our institutions were wonderful, but an all-or-nothing approach makes no sense. We have moved the mentally ill out of sometimes awful psychiatric facilities into the revolving door of the street, prison and an early death.

     Collectivization of the inmates of those institutions as “mentally ill” strikes me as unwise. Some of them were surely insane (“a danger to himself or others”) and thus benefited from being confined for their own safety and well-being. But it’s likely, given the weakness of the legal protections of one compelled to undergo psychiatric examination, that some were not – that they were victims of others the law allowed to railroad them into confinement.

     Still, CBD has a point: Surely some of the “homeless” occupy our heating grates because of deinstitutionalization. This is not a matter in which the arrow of justice points unambiguously and inarguably in one and only one direction. How, then, can we distinguish those who would genuinely benefit from confinement from those who are victims of procedural abuse?

     Some final thoughts from Warren Redlich, “Albany lawyer:”

     It is idiotic that those suspected of being a danger to themselves have less rights than those suspected of actually harming others. Yes it is important to make an effort to protect people with dangerous mental health problems. But it is more important that we ensure this is not abused. Anyone subject to involuntary commitment should have at least the same rights as an arrestee.

     And thanks to Winston's comment on facebook, there's another point. When the mental health professional pulls the involuntary commitment trigger, it inherently damages the relationship. That may be necessary at times. But if the process thereafter is unfair, it further damages the relationship between the patient and the entire mental health profession. Future care for this person will be far more difficult.

     Food for thought.

Quickies: Correcting The Record On The Right

     It does no one any good to falsify history. This is as important in discussing guns as on any other subject of interest.

     This RedState article, written by “streiff,” contains the following:

     On Wednesday, Ted Cruz was on Morning Joe to debate gun control and what Cruz did to Scarborough is a felony in at least twenty-three states and two territories. Before we go any further, let’s recall that Joe Scarborough, back when he was trying to get elected to Congress, touted his 100% NRA rating. It is only in his new life as MSNBC’s “house” conservative that he’s become just another anti-gun Nazi.

     SCARBOROUGH: It actually, the studies, even the Pentagon studies show that weapons like the AR-15 actually are designed to be more lethal, and there were actually — and I’ve talked about the article a good bit. There’s an article in the Atlantic in 1981, where actually, they did an after-action report, and there was criticism that a gun much like the AR-15 wasn’t used in Vietnam because it was lighter, it was more lethal, and it was more of a killing machine than the guns that our soldiers were using in Vietnam. So, it is designed to kill more effectively, more efficiently.

     Upon which “streiff” jumps in:

     Anyone vaguely familiar with the history of the M-16 know this is absolute bullsh**.

     Unfortunately for “streiff,” Scarborough is correct:

     Rep. ICHORD: One Army boy told me he had shot a Vietcong near the eye with an M-14, and the bullet did not make too large a hole on exit, but he shot a Vietcong under similar circumstances in the same place with an M-16 [the militarized version of the AR-15] and his whole head was reduced to pulp. This would not appear to make sense. You have greater velocity but the bullet is lighter.

     Gene STONER [designer of the AR-15]: That is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics....What it amounts to is that bullets are stabilized to fly through the air, and not through water or a body, which is approximately the same density as water. And they are stable as long as they are in the air. When they hit something, they immediately go unstable....If you are talking about a .30 caliber bullet [the M-14’s bullet caliber], that might remain stable through a human body....While a little bullet, being that it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation and reacts much faster. This is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.

     [Hearings, Special Subcommittee on the M-16 Rifle Program, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, 90th Congress, 1st session. Quoted in James Fallows’s book National Defense.]

     Indeed, the whole point of the AR-15 / M-16 program was to produce a rifle whose ammunition weighs less and spins less rapidly than that of the M-14, specifically to improve three things:

• The lethality of the wounds it causes;
• The controllability of the rifle on full automatic;
• The amount of ammunition the rifleman could carry.

     “Streiff” has not done his homework. His error must be noted here and elsewhere. No matter one’s position on the right to keep and bear arms, it does no good to spread inaccuracies about a gun, its properties, or the intentions behind its design.

The Heartbreak Of Socialism

     (Not to be confused with its predecessor, “the heartbreak of psoriasis.”)

     According to her Washington Post online resume:

     Elizabeth [Breunig] grew up in Texas, graduated from Brandeis with honors in 2013 and attended the University of Cambridge as a Marshall Scholar, where she earned her master’s in Christian theology. She joined the New Republic in 2015 as a staff writer, and in early 2016, she became an assistant editor for The Post’s Outlook section, commissioning and editing thoughtful stories on big ideas. Elizabeth lives in Washington D.C. with her husband Matt and her daughter Jane.

     Given that graduation date and her youthful appearance, she’s young: possibly no more than thirty. Given the sentiments she expresses in this article:

     In the United States, we’ve arrived at a pair of mutually exclusive convictions: that liberal, capitalist democracies are guaranteed by their nature to succeed and that in our Trumpist moment they seem to be failing in deeply unsettling ways. For liberals — and by this I mean inheritors of the long liberal tradition, not specifically those who might also be called progressives — efforts to square these two notions have typically combined expressions of high anxiety with reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

     Hanging on and hoping for the best is certainly one approach to rescuing the best of liberalism from its discontents, but my answer is admittedly more ambitious: It’s time to give socialism a try.

     ...she’s not yet terribly well acquainted with reality. But then, the young haven’t had that much of an opportunity to learn, and young women who’ve gone directly from a contemporary university to writing op-ed for left-wing publications have had less than their coevals. Possibly none at all.

     The esteemed Mike Hendrix has disemboweled that essay, as have others in the Dextrospheric Commentariat. I’m not here to do that. Rather, I intend to use it to address a perennial political folly: how it begins, how it evolves, how it dissolves...and the causticity of the dissolution products.

---

     “Ignorance is of a peculiar nature; once dispelled, it is impossible to reestablish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant.” – Thomas Paine

     The C.S.O. has a theory that one can’t really lie to oneself – that at some level of the mind one knows the truth, however unpleasant, despite all attempts to evade it. She might be right; I can’t really say. But after watching the process at close range for many years, I can say how one comes to believe a pretty lie. The lie of interest today is, of course, socialism.

     First and foremost, as the Paine quote above says, one cannot be made to accept a falsehood, however attractive, if one is already in possession of a countervailing truth, properly supported by evidence. Mind you, one can be coerced into parroting a lie, as many subjects of totalitarian dictatorships can testify. But to make one sincerely believe in a lie, once he has been acquainted with the truth via sound reasoning and evidence, is impossible.

     Thus, socialism, like other political phantasms, must be nurtured in the young and untutored. Concurrently, their “instructors” must contrive to insulate them from countervailing thinking and evidence. Often, subsidiary falsehoods – e.g., about what the conditions of life “really” were in the Soviet Union – are required, just as the proofs of many important theorems in geometry require that certain “lemmas” be proved first. But above all else, the young target must be screened against “ugly little facts” if he is to become a “true believer.”

---

     There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat, plausible, and wrong. – H. L. Mencken

     Second, but more or less concurrent with the above, the young target must be persuaded to view public affairs as a study in “problems” and “solutions.” In other words, the mindset of mathematics must be superimposed upon social, economic, and political conditions. Disliked conditions must be characterized as “problems” to be addressed. Consideration of whether those conditions are inherent in the nature of Man is to be discouraged. And of course, where there are “problems,” the young target must be conditioned to demand “solutions.”

     For example, consider human inequality. This is so basic a matter as to admit of no discussion. No two individuals are equal in any objective sense; how could we expect their achievements and attainments to be equal? Yet the young target will be encouraged to see inequality, especially economic inequality, as a “problem” that must be “solved.” His mentor must see to it that his passions are linked to the “problems” he sees, such that “solving” them becomes a matter of personal emotional fulfillment.

     The young target who invests emotionally in this fashion comes to identify with the “problem” and the need for a “solution.” That is, his sense of self-worth becomes bound to it; it becomes his Cause. The attachment will constitute a source of moral self-elevation. It cannot be severed without damaging his opinion of himself, which of course he will protect most devotedly.

---

     “Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

     Third, the young target must be persuaded to believe that the “solutions” to the “problems” he has been taught to see all inhere in socialism: the expropriation of the “propertied class” and the “bourgeoisie,” such that “the workers” can thence direct the “means of production” to their own advantage. Note that the mental conditions imposed upon him in the previous two segments are indispensable to this:

• The target has not learned about the history of socialist systems and their demises.
• He now thinks of economic inequality as a “problem” that demands a “solution.”
• He has invested his passion in the matter, such that whatever “solution” presents itself will acquire his passionate allegiance.
• Socialism now applies for his allegiance by presenting the “solution” he seeks so ardently.

     If the target’s assumptions about “equality” and “inequality” can be maintained, socialism can be made attractive to him. After all, the expropriations would put “the workers” in charge. There would no longer be a “propertied class” or “bourgeoisie;” all would perforce become “workers.” Thus, equality of control over the “means of production” would have been achieved. “Naturally” that would lead to “equality” of economic outcomes for all the “workers.”

     The target will be taught to dismiss the objections of the more knowledgeable and realistic as “classism:” an understandable attempt to retain a “privileged status.” As that harmonizes with his desire to believe himself morally superior to others, he’ll take to it easily.

---

     “Do you know why being a revolutionary doesn't work in this country? Being a revolutionary in America is like being a spoil sport at an orgy. All these goodies being passed around and you feel like a shit when you say no.” – cynical ex-revolutionary Howard Eppis in The Big Fix, from Roger Simon’s novel of the same name.

     The decay of socialist affiliation will begin if the target, having lived a bit and learned, as one must if one is to live decently, about human nature and the realities that proceed from it, realizes that socialism is not a “solution” to anything. As it’s a magnet for persons who want power over others, it incorporates dynamics that exacerbate inequality among men while simultaneously impoverishing the great majority and investing the ruthless minority with unbounded and absolute power. There are now two possible courses the no-longer-so-young socialist:

• He can rationalize it in some fashion, and plot to become one of the “commissars;”
• He can begin to move away from it.

     To be sure, some American socialists retain their faith in it lifelong. Somehow, they manage never to lose the illusions that underpin that faith. Most, however, eventually learn better. What makes the difference then is the possession of adequate humility. Those who lack it will either remain socialists cosmetically – i.e., in hope of attaining personal status and power after the postulated revolution – or will become cynical, dismissive of all social theories and ideological conceptions as confidence games. Those who possess it will gradually disabuse themselves of socialism’s assumptions as they acquire knowledge and perspective.

     An important contributing factor must be mentioned here: the propensity for envy. We’re all susceptible to envy in some degree; it takes a lot of character always to view others’ advancement over or past oneself without rancor. The envious can sometimes be induced to remain in the socialist fold out of envy, by inducing them to see their envy as a desire for justice: “Why should he have it and you not?” Of course, in this use of the word justice, one can easily see the lineaments of another, less praiseworthy emotion: the desire for revenge.

---

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

     It might come to some of his admirers as a surprise, but the young Heinlein held to very different convictions than the later one. The above, from his early novelette “Gulf,” suggests that the young Heinlein would approve of the sort of “organization of supermen” that the quoted character operates. The idea that human society would eventually stratify into a superclass of highly gifted natural rulers and protectors and a subclass whose affairs are to be managed for them can also be found in his novel Beyond This Horizon. As always, the rationale is inevitability:

     'The idea is to skim the cream of the race's germ plasm and keep it biologically separate until the two races are permanently distinct. You chaps sound like a bunch of stinkers. Kettle Belly."
     "Monkey talk."
     "Perhaps. The new race would necessarily run things—"
     "Do you expect New Man to decide grave matters by counting common man's runny noses?"
     "No, that was my point. Postulating such a new race, the result is inevitable. Kettle Belly, I confess to a monkey prejudice in favor of democracy, human dignity, and freedom. It goes beyond logic; it is the kind of a world I like. In my job I have jungled with the outcasts of society, shared their slumgullion. Stupid they may be, bad they are not. I have no wish to see them become domestic animals."
     For the first time the big man showed concern. His persona as "King of the Kopters," master merchandiser, slipped away; he sat in brooding majesty, a lonely and unhappy figure. "I know, Joe. They are of us; their little dignities, their nobilities, are not lessened by their sorry state. Yet it must be."...
     "No, Joe. The gulf between us and them is narrow, but it is very deep. We cannot close it." [Ibid]

     But one who advances such a thesis is highly unlikely to think of himself as belonging to the underclass, his life to be managed by his inherent superiors. Heinlein learned better. To retain their humanity, those who eventually disaffiliate themselves from socialism must do the same. The alternative is a bitter cynicism that leads to the conviction that what matters is power and ruthlessness: the “dog-eat-dog” philosophy of the predator.

     But some socialists never do learn better. Some remain behind a “fact-proof screen” (Eric Hoffer) lifelong. There are many striving to erect such screens and to confine young, idealistic Americans inescapably behind them. And there you have, in a nutshell, the reason the strategists of socialism are so determined to control all the popular conduits of information and opinion...to deny those who differ with them any platform from which to speak.

     I may return to this subject. Watch this space.

The Porn-ification of Popular Media Culture

I've missed a lot of this. Apparently, being too cheap to pay for "premium" cable has been a blessing.

While I was visiting my family, I got some insight into this situation. My kids have been used to having HBO and all the other costly cable subscriptions. They have seen things I've not - such as the popular Game of Thrones.

In the first episode, I was introduced to the main characters - the Stark family (the head of that clan is the one that is often seen in memes screaming "Winter is Coming!"), the king and his family (one of them a dwarf), and the previous royal family, containing that extremely pale Daenerys, third from the right in the photo display.

In fact, the coloration of these various families is one of the ways to keep them straight - dark, blonde, almost albino white - it's a study in ethnic solidarity.

There are some worthwhile aspects of this show, and the books they are based on. The stories are complex, interweaving, and require the persons watching to follow subtle story threads. So, one point for NOT having a "from start to resolution in an hour" overly simple construction. Actually, now that I think about it, the structure is more like a soap opera - multiple interwoven plot lines, only moving slowly towards completion.

However, there is a major bar, for me, to judging this a good thing.

That's the excessive nudity. Virtually every woman who is between 18-30 spends an inordinate amount of time full-on naked. Oh, sure, the viewer and the producers can justify it by saying that women weren't highly valued in these times, except for their sexual and reproductive capability. But, that doesn't mean that it's a good thing that the only way for a woman to get, and stay, on this show is to agree to take her clothes off and be "handled" by another actor as directed.

And, the women are handled. Roughly, because of their position in the castle (hey, for a serving wench, it's all in the job description), incestuously, by relatives, maritally, by the person that was arranged for you as part of a power play.

It's not subtle. It's not suggested.

Full-on fondling. A little like 70's semi-porn.

It's unnecessary. It's exploitative. It's happening, right in the middle of the #MeToo movement. The lack of awareness of the media is unbelievable. 

The finale for Season 8 reached 8.9 million viewers, who paid good money for it. Altogether, as many as 23 million viewers may have paid for a subscription to the show.

The sexual exploitation of the actresses (and a few actors) simply HAS to continue. Any future shows looking for the same success will have to include gratuitous sexually-charged scenes, if they hope to keep a jaded audience.

Westworld, an HBO production, expects even the extras to agree to whatever sexually-oriented action that the directors want. They are no longer relying on the "coaxing" that was standard before this.

The waiver was blasted by the Screen Actors Guild, which said that it did not explain the rights that actors belonging to the union have during sexual scenes.

“It’s important that performers understand their rights,” SAG spokesman Pamela Greenwalt said. “Employers should not be requiring performers to sign consent forms that do not accurately describe their rights under the collective-bargaining agreement.”

Greenwalt said extras have the right to withdraw consent at any time, along with the right to have a closed set for nude scenes and a prohibition of still photography.

Here is more detail on the REQUIREMENTS for extras on Westworld. How that differs from what prostitutes do in their regular work, I simply don't know. And, they are not as well paid as the professionals.

The waiver’s requirements are so far past what extras normally do, the creators of “Westworld” have jacked up the standard $157-a-day union pay rate to $600, the report said.

Years ago, I seem to remember the Screen Actors Guild fighting to keep actors/actresses from being forced to strip for a role. At that time, the head of SAG (what an unfortunate acronym!) was a woman - it might have been Kathy Nolan - who tried to hold back the trend. If anyone has more knowledge of that time, leave it in the comments.

I lived through a sanitized time, before cable sidestepped industry norms. It produced some good television, and some mediocre TV, as well. Just like today. The problem wasn't the limitations. It was the poor imagination of the producers.

How does erotica fit into this?

It doesn't. Traditionally, erotica was relatively private - books, magazines, art, photos/film. Those involved in its production and consumption were all engaged in an activity that they consented to.

The larger society didn't engage with it, or have it brought into their home. It was generally illegal to sell to children, or involve them in producing it.

Now, did that stop people from using unwilling women and children? No. Just as the fact that it was illegal doesn't stop murder or robbery. The unlawful nature of it kept it existing on the fringes. Whether that was a good thing, or bad, I leave to you.

As long as the use of erotica was discreet, people were generally left alone.

What did result from this exclusion of erotic displays in mainstream film was that actresses and actors were not forced to strip, fondle and be fondled, or otherwise engage in sexual actions as a part of their standard job. That some might have had to subject themselves to sexual imposition to GET the job hasn't changed. However, they weren't forced to put that imposition on permanent display for the public's titillation.

I have a hard time with this whole issue - it's colored by my sense of modesty in public. I might be a freak in private, but - in public, I keep my sex life to myself. And, frankly, I'd strongly prefer NOT to know about other's more kinky sides.

Indulging ones interest in the erotic side of life is, and should stay, a private matter. There is no need to leave one's curtains open when romping around the house, no need to comment on the multiple uses of produce while shopping in the supermarket, and no need to bring out the vacation pictures of your latest stay at the nude beach while at work.

There's a difference between shame, and discretion. Many legal adult activities are best left behind closed doors. My feelings and thoughts on this were probably shaped by my career as a teacher. You may not realize it, but in most districts, you can be fired for:

• Publicly being impaired due to drugs or alcohol - even being seen with a glass of beer or wedding champagne in your hand in a Facebook picture has caused teachers to be fired - and not just in religiously-affiliated schools.
• Living with a significant other without marriage.
• Expressing an unpopular political opinion.
• Taking a stand against a popular SJW cause - gay marriage, special programs for minorities, immigration.

The funny thing is, the very same activities that actors are being compelled to engage in - as part of their normal working day - could, if engaged in while off-the-clock, cause their employment to be terminated by activating the Morals Clause.

It's not an issue of artistic integrity or prudishness. It's a matter of POWER. And, when actors get power, they often reject the nudity that made them famous.

On a separate note, I've published Right As Usual's Recommended Reading List - it's NOT complete, just a few of the books that I've read that influenced me. I'll be adding to it over time.

I would recommend that you purchase HARD copies (and paperbacks) of the classic books on culture and politics. It's easier to hand someone a book than to try to persuade them to buy it. For that reason, I'd suggest buying (used) Whittaker Chambers' Witness, F A Hayek's books, and other foundation reading that away.

The lying, leftist “conversation” on gun control.

“Control,” of course, means “confiscation.” Bottom line. Not a leftist troll or liberal moonbat sincerely advocates only “common-sense” regulation. In their dishonest hearts their minds are impervious to the excellent logic of Mr. Lynn in the article from which the following quotes are taken. Only confiscation will suffice.

In 2016, Wikipedia shows that 37,461 people in the U.S. were killed in automobile accidents. Wikipedia also shows that 225 people (not counting the killers) were killed in the “deadliest” mass shootings from and including 2012 to and including today. This is 225 deaths over roughly a six-year period, or an average 37.5 deaths per year. The auto accident death toll in 2016 alone was 999 times higher in that one year than that average. For the five years from 2012-2016 there were 172,365 auto accident fatalities. In the same period there were 82 mass shootings. Thus, 2,102 more accidents than shootings.

The accidents we tolerate. Accidents happen.

Yes, the automobile figures represent death from negligence as opposed to evil intent. But the auto deaths occur even though massive, and I do mean massive, engineering and technical resources have been devoted to reducing auto deaths in every way imaginable.

That cannot be said of deaths from mass shootings. One and only one solution is pursued by the left – the solution that, mirabile dictu, just happens always and forever to infringe on the citizen’s natural law right to keep and bear arms, the final defense of the citizen to government tyranny. Or, stated another way, the citizen’s last ditch defense against exactly the kind of destruction and tyranny that leftists dream of for the United States and everywhere else in the Western world.

Tyranny. It’s what’s for dinner. The left doesn’t much care about specific policy options just so long as they're compulsory, as some wit observed. And they ensure the establishment and consolidation of absolute power in the hands of an unelected elite.

Lynn’s article is well worth your time and it relentlessly exposes the dishonesty of the “debate” about guns in this country.

Ludicrous spokesmen:

Why must law-abiding citizens yield to the emotionalism of traumatized children, politicized law enforcement officers, and liberal snowflakes?^[1]

Magical thinking:

How can some people assign culpability to a mere tool you ask? It’s a fair question. Those who hate guns believe evil should be confronted through the elimination of its occasional means; a device, or gadget. This is not overly unlike someone dieting to lose weight by removing the silverware from their kitchen.^[2]

Dishonest framing of the issues:

Some women, certain children, corrupt Broward county sheriffs, and most liberal snowflakes today willfully employ convenient tunnel-vision in order to unjustifiably convict firearms for murder. In so doing, they maliciously downplay any other contributing factors behind every mass shooting. These would include mental illness, the side-effects of psychotropic drugs, law enforcement failures, bullying, and family neglect.

But more than that, what about the supplemental influences from violent Hollywood movies and video games? Think about that. Why do companies pay millions of dollars to entertainers and athletes to endorse their products? Because advertising works. But now we are expected to believe that violence in movies and video games cause no adverse effects on children?

Why are all of these considerations summarily dismissed by the Political Left in the national conversation on guns? Why is the blame always solely placed onto the gadget by those favoring gun control? Why do they push for more laws when the FBI and local law enforcement agencies appear completely helpless to prevent the mass shootings from occurring in the first place?^[3]

Government incompetence and stupidity:

In the days following the Parkland Florida shooting, Jim Quinn, the administrator of TheBurningPlatform.com, commented on a correlating thread there:

This week’s gun control argument in a nutshell: because government failed at every level, you need to have your rights curtailed…by the government that just failed at every level.^[4]

Notes
^[1] "Moron Gun Control: Women and Children First." By Doug Lynn, The Burning Platform, 3/1/18.
^[2] Id.
^[3] Id.
^[4] Id.

High-level dishonesty.

"Oh, yes," as Mark Levin would say:

Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as “superb.” Personally, I would shun any “recommendation” from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005.

Dearlove explained to Blair that President George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq for regime change and that the war was to be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” Dearlove added matter-of-factly, “The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.”^[1]

Conclusions first; “facts” later. Shades of "Assad the butcher" and the chemical weapons travesty still playing out in Syria.

Notes
^[1] "‘Progressive’ Journalists Jump the Shark on Russiagate." By Ray McGovern, AntiWar.com, 3/8/18 (emphasis added).

The Civil War - Part II

We are in a position of crisis today, caused by people choosing to repeat the conditions that existed at the time of the Civil War (Part I).

They have:

• Brought into their states people from foreign lands, and kept them in a state of dependency.
• Multiplied their number, through encouragement to have children, who would also be dependent on the Massa.
• Cynically used their illegal presence in the USA, to gain more representation in the federal Congress than they would otherwise be entitled to.
• Ignored these aliens preying upon the citizens - committing personal assaults, robbing, driving cars drunkenly - and blaming the victims for protesting.
• Put barriers to enforcement of federal law within their state.
• Flat-out refused to allow their "good ole' boys" to help out the Feds round up criminals.
• Used mob action to enforce their racially-biased defiance of the law.
• And, now, make it a CRIME for officials or even citizens to assist the Federal government in their legally-permitted execution of immigration law.

All that is needed is for the Rebels to take over Federal property, and fire on the Feds from it. At that point, either the Federal Government will have to declare that the States are in Rebellion, or - more likely - those states will openly declare their Secession.

This is, with one slight addition, at least traditional.

A VERY popular alliance, and one that will allow them to feel superior to the rest of us.

I still can't believe that the Democrats thought this acceptable - AND, that Black Democrats didn't protest it.

The more Radical elements in the Rebellion would like this.

What might follow? How about the federal government cutting off Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security and other benefits rolling into the Rebellious States of America (R.S.A)? How about removal of all Federal entities, military, and arms from that state. Such an action could bring the Rebels to the bargaining table.

Frankly, before that time, a prudent administration would - under the radar - remove all munitions, equipment, and transport from military bases. I assume that they will be that smart (although, with politicians, you never know). No sense giving them opportunities that the Colonials had at Lexington and Concord, not to mention the loss of arms to the Original Confederacy.

Like my ancestors, I will fight for the Union, if it comes to that. But, I'm hopeful that wiser heads at the state level will slap down the Rebels before it happens.

I believe that MOST of this is posturing on the part of the Progressives. Given the truly precarious position that they would be in, if a split should happen, it is an unlikely scenario.

Public Places, Public Spaces

     As time passes, I find myself more and more at odds with more and more of the doctrinaire statements issued by libertarians and libertarian organizations. A friend once opined that it was natural – that “we all get more conservative as we get older.” That does seem to be so, but it might not be the sole reason for my migration away from what I once held to be a comprehensive sociopolitical ideology.

     Most recently, I found that I was troubled by a statement, from a well known libertarian outreach organization, decrying a proposed law that would make the public wearing of “saggy pants” a ticketable offense. Its argument (such as it is) is “Who has the right to tell you how you should wear your pants?” If we leave wives, girlfriends, and public places out of the equation, the answer would seem simple. But perhaps things are not quite that simple once public places are dragged into the question.

     Laws about public dress and conduct go back several centuries at least. Many of them appear farcical to modern eyes. Several states once criminalized the wearing of pants by women. That certainly wouldn’t fly today. But other laws, such as laws that prohibit indecent exposure, remain on the books just about everywhere in the U.S., whether or not they’re enforced to any degree.

     Now, longevity is no determinant of justice or utility. However, it does suggest a direction in which to probe. That direction is one that troubles the pure libertarian greatly. It arises from the very existence of public property: yet another matter to which the pure libertarian is opposed.

---

     I once had a friend, a young woman I’ll call Jane, who was given to talking uninhibitedly about her paramours. (Why she did so to me remains unresolved. It might have been because there was absolutely no possibility of my ever becoming one of them.) At one time she told me of one whom she valued solely for his talents in bed. They spent almost no time together other than in the sack.

     “And you’re okay with that?” I said. “Don’t you ever feel a little used?”

     Jane shrugged. “It comes and goes.” She smirked. “Like Jeff.”

     As you can see, Jane was not without a sense of humor. But there was a certain insight in her witticism. We all come and go. Not the way “Jeff” did, of course, but in our daily lives. We travel hither and thither. We go to church, to work, to lunch; to the grocery store, to Pilates class – why anyone would want to be like him, I’ll never understand – to various social gatherings, and, hopefully, back home again. All this coming and going requires access to routes of travel.

     It doesn’t stop there. We all shop, now and then. Online shopping excepted, we find that our experience is most convenient and agreeable when stores are clustered into shopping centers or malls. That necessitates a certain quasi-public space around those stores: not precisely public, but possessing an implied right-of-access like that of literally public places.

     Public places aggregate us, willy-nilly, into collectives. They will always have rules about public dress and deportment. As I wrote last September,

I’m an individualist when I deal with individuals;
I’m a collectivist when I discuss collectives.
I’m a believer in individual liberty and justice for all.

     And so I shall remain.

---

     There are many things wrong with the profusion of public property as we know it today. Indeed, one of the libertarian’s most ardent desires is that public property should be minimized, if not eliminated altogether. Yet the complications that would arise from that state of affairs are considerable: not necessarily insuperable, mind you, but certainly yet to be resolved. However, while we must endure a scheme of ubiquitous public property, there will be laws about what will be tolerated from persons who traverse or use it.

     I’ve spoken of “connectedness problems” on many occasions. There’s a deep and intractable connectedness problem in this matter of public spaces and public deportment. As long as the former exists, so will laws about the latter. The need might even transcend the issue of public versus private property.

     A society in which the individual cannot conduct his affairs without being offended, harassed, or assaulted cannot retain cohesion. It will disintegrate at a rate proportional to the degree of defiance exhibited toward the prevailing sense of what’s proper. Norms about public dress and conduct are mandatory for that reason.

     An example: I hold that prostitution should be legalized. Yet I favor laws against solicitation in public places. Individual freedom matters. So do public standards of decorum. When individual freedom can be made compatible with public order in the interests of social harmony, there is no reason not to arrange for it.

     The fusionists have argued that this is always possible – that we can have both individual liberty and public order. I tend to agree. At least, I’ve heard no counterexamples yet.

---

     The thinking above is the logical development of the core ideas presented in this long essay. It also finds expression in this piece, which is more relevant today than ever. I’m willing to discuss cases, but not if I must endure name-calling, derision, or contempt. Do your thinking before you hurl your epithets.

Rectification of names.

Confusion reigns on this score at the highest altitudes of official Connecticut on the issue of guns:

As The Daily Caller's Henry Rodgers reports , Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat, also said his state would “boycott” the NRA and said the organization has been acting like a “terrorist organization,” in an interview with Fox61.^[1]

Sloppy and dishonest use of language is grievous problem in our times, but it’s not exclusively a modern problem. Confucius talked about the right use of language. If you don’t call things by their right names you can’t make good policy and the nation suffers.

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be conducted successfully. When affairs cannot be conducted successfully, propriety will not flourish. When propriety does not flourish, punishments will not be properly meted out. When punishments are not properly meted out, the people will not know how to conduct themselves.”

Some 800 years later this observation:

“All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations.

~ Ephraem (c. 306-373).^[2]

And, now, Col. B. Bunny calls attention to the same problem. Is there no end to this man’s genius?

Notes
^[1] "Connecticut Governor: NRA Is A 'Terrorist Organization.'" By Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, 3/7/18.
^[2] "The Most Catholic Quotes of the Early Church Fathers on Correct Scriptural Interpretation & Authority." Posted by Tony Listi, Conservative Colloquium, 11/13/13.

Quickies: The Race Card Has Been Supplanted By The Offense Card

     The following brief speech, made by Delegate Nick Freitas on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates, has drawn a lot of attention:

     It’s a fine bit of rhetoric to be sure, every word of it well grounded in the facts, and I applaud it heartily – but the most striking thing about it was the reaction of the Democrats in the Assembly: they walked out.

     Here’s a tweet of one Democrat’s reaction:

     Del Joseph Lindsey, D-Norfolk, says Freitas's speech may be the most offensive thing he's heard in his time in the House.

     "I have seen many of my colleagues emotionally shaken and bothered by either a lack of concern for facts. Or just simply playing to the cameras."

     Delegate Lindsey will soon learn – if he hasn’t already – that claiming to be “offended” no longer causes all of us in the Right to abase ourselves and beg forgiveness. The Democrats have offended us far too often and too deeply.

Quickies: Frustration On The Left

     According to the Daily Wire, a student at a Utah high school tried to blow up his school yesterday. This has the Left terribly frustrated, for two reasons:

1. The student was flying the ISIS flag, and you know how careful the media are not to say anything negative about ISIS, Islam, or Muslims;
2. The progressive mouthpieces are stymied, being unable to blame the episode on the National Explosives Association.

     Clearly, though, we must have much stricter bomb control – and at once!

How the "Spontaneous" Children Against Guns Protests Weren't

I've been reading a lot about the underpinnings of the "organic anti-gun protests" in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Many of these kids that are involved are passionate, concerned, and sincerely want to help see that such an atrocity never happens again.

They have, however, been co-opted by Leftists who will exploit them. It is critical that we spread the information about how this process happens, for two reasons:

• Reduce the ease with which Leftists take over and start a movement out of a frustrated, grieving population. It's not just the immediate issue that has to be countered; it's the YEARS of working for Leftists, unknowingly, that will result if we left them get away with it. Too many of my peers in the 1960s and 1970s got lost - they were largely unable to form stable relationships and families due to the toxic influence of Leftists who were more eager to exploit their unpaid labor than to see them move on to a better life. They wasted years not building up their savings and investments, instead priding themselves on being "one of the people", moving from ill-paid job to ill-paid job. They are the seniors now, still working at marginal jobs, unable to look forward to some well-deserved rest. They are the bitter women, without children or grandchildren. Their only connections are in the Left - they HAVE to follow them to the bitter end.
• To CHOOSE one's causes is a good thing; such alliances will be thoughtful, in line with one's principles and religion, and congruent with one's aims in life. To be pushed into alliances that hide their ultimate goals is to be a pawn. It is unconscionable to USE one's position as a teacher to forward YOUR goals and use students to do it. Too many of the Activist Groups are licking their chops at the prospect of indoctrinating YOUR children into the Leftist Cult.

What is the proper role of Non-Leftists? To point out the Astroturfing.

But it’s not just a mainstream media problem. None of the righty outlets writing about Parkland picked up on the clear evidence that professional organizers were backing the Parkland kids, either. Instead, they objected to the front-and-centering of minor kids as unseemly, which does no good: Lefties aren’t going to listen, and it doesn’t educate the Right to counter.

The closest anyone got was Elizabeth Harrington at the Washington Free Beacon, who noted that Clooney’s publicist was booking the kids’ media interviews pro bono, and said that a friend (not Clooney) had asked him to do it. The result of all this is that the average righty does not understand what’s going on in activism, because all they see is what the press covers. The stuff that’s visible. It’s like expecting people in the Stone Age to grok the Roman army by looking at it. Conspiracy theorists happily fill this ignorance vacuum.

Please, read the manuals that detail just HOW these Lefty Organizations manufacture their "spontaneous" protests. If you just can't bring yourself to spend that much money for something that will benefit Leftists, at least check out the links below.

Or - and this might be fun - send in an undercover agent to be trained with those manuals - once they've gotten copies, rip off the Leftists with pdfs posted on the Dark Web.

Some advice from a right-wing radical on how to combat left-wing violence. He links to several books that will give you the knowledge you need to see these tactics in action.

A site for Bernie Bros and others - it's filled with practical tactics, training, and strategies that made the Aging Revolutionary/Befuddled Leftist gain such traction, given the flawed nature of the candidate. A truly impressive collection.

Another source of information about How They Manage That Protest Thing, and why Leftists seem to be supported by so many (Hint: It's an illusion, generated by a sophisticated understanding of how to manufacture allies).

And, just because he makes a hell of a lot of sense on basic human nature, this post from The House of Eratothenes.

A Little Edge

     [I wrote what follows fifteen years ago. It first appeared at the old Palace of Reason on July 22, 2003. It appears I was more of a Pollyanna back then, though I had no more reason for it than I do today. -- FWP]

---

     If you're politically engaged, you might have gotten the impression that a lot of people are in a really bad mood. The major Establishment conduits of opinion are doing their damnedest to give you that impression.

     Your Curmudgeon tends to stay away from the opinion-mongers of print and broadcast journalism. Law And Order reruns are all very well, but Rather, Brokaw and Jennings shall not deface his ProScan PS65000's screen. His one exception is the Sunday edition of the New York Times, which his lady love regards as a staple of gracious living, and which stimulates the spleen for his Sunday screeds.

     So, being largely disconnected from "mainstream" exhortation, condemnation, and prognostication, your Curmudgeon must judge the actual State of the Union from less monochromatic, less formal sources: conversations with friends and neighbors, water-cooler gossip at his place of employment, and, of course, the Internet. Though unorganized, these provide their own, surprisingly coherent portrait of American preferences and temper.

     A great part of America is indifferent to politics.

     That's not to say that most Americans don't have opinions about, in Rush Limbaugh's phrase, "the way things ought to be." Of course they have opinions; everyone does. Opinions are more ubiquitous than the common cold, and quite as impossible to dispel. What they don't have is the inclination to duke it out with differently-minded others, in a struggle for the power to impose their opinions upon the nation by force of law. Moreover, they regard those who do suffer that ailment with increasing weariness and skepticism.

     That's not carved in stone, of course. Sufficiently dramatic events -- the Black Tuesday atrocities; the 2000 stock market collapse; the demise of Buffy -- are capable of turning us all into political junkies, at least while the lead is flying. But in the intervals between such 200-proof disasters, most Americans prefer not to be bothered.

     This is anathema to the Blabocracy: the ring of analysts, commentators, and policy cranks whose fixation, whether remunerated or provided gratis, is the expression of political opinion. These folks -- yes, yes, your Curmudgeon qualifies for membership in their ranks; now can we kindly move on, please? -- dislike to think that their oraculations might be dismissed, or worse, ignored.

     Increasingly, the Blabocracy's approach to bidding for our attention has been to put a little edge on its offerings. Sometimes, a lot of edge. Something that cuts, that draws blood.

     In part, this is an emulation of demonstrably successful voices, persons whose gifts of flamboyance and sarcasm have won them wide and devoted audiences. But flamboyance and sarcasm are the tools of an entertainer. Sincere use would require that the pundit present himself as an entertainer, too, to the detriment of his reputation as an objective analyst. Sound, carefully phrased logic on serious policy matters seldom contains a lot of laugh lines.

     But in still larger measure, the edge is a response to the recognition that it's easier to galvanize "the base" by offering it an enemy to despise than by presenting it with evidence and logic. Both sides can offer evidence and logic, at least in theory. The resulting soft-voiced exchange would lull most of the public right to sleep. So instead, pundits desirous of a strong reaction from a large audience caricature their opposition as an undifferentiated mass with low motives, and then excoriate the resulting construct with a maximum of scorn.

     It's not pretty. And few commentators are entirely innocent of it.

     It continues to be true that nearly all Americans are well intentioned toward their fellow man. (We'll come back to the malevolent minority.) They wish no one harm; they simply don't want to be harmed themselves, whether by private action or through the agency of the law. But some can be persuaded that shadowed forces with ominous labels -- "liberals," "conservatives," "radicals," "reactionaries," "the religious right," or what have you -- are working to harm them. That will get them out of their recliners, at least far enough to read the op-ed page of the regional paper.

     Because of the coercive nature of governance, there's frequently enough objective truth to such allegations to make it important to listen to them. The trick is to detoxify them in the process.

     When men are benevolently disposed toward one another, and recognize their agreement on ends, their politics is about means: how to get us from where we are to where we would all like to be. When men see one another as members of mutually hostile factions, their politics degenerates to war, a negative-sum game whose players have irreconcilable objectives. Even the winner emerges poorer than before.

     If we recognize our overwhelming benevolence and commonality of goals, we can avoid the sort of rhetorical warfare that would destroy good will among us. But what then remains? What are we to make of the few percent who really do wish to harm someone, and are willing to lie, distort, and obfuscate to get the power to do it?

     Perhaps it's enough to recognize them for what they are. As Louis Nizer has said, when a man points a finger at another, his other fingers are pointing back at himself. Therefore, test each accusation against what you know of the accuser and his goals, express or implied. Make up your mind from there. And above all:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it -- no matter if I have said it! -- unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. (Gautama Bodhisattva, also known as the Buddha)

     Now there's an edge to cut through the blather with.

Assorted, But With A Theme

     Normally, when I produce one of these grab-bag pieces, the citations are all over the issues map. Not today.

---

1. Canada Has Troubles, Too.

     The Canadian reputation for courtesy and gentle decorum is well deserved. Even their Muslim terrorists say “Excuse me” and “Thank you” before they blow you up. However, it develops that AntiFa, or at least a group very like it, is intent upon blotting that reputation:

     Hamilton police spent most of Saturday evening on Locke Street investigating damage caused by a group of about 30 individuals, dressed in black clothing with their faces covered, who walked down the street carrying a banner that said, “We Are The Ungovernables.”

     The group began setting off fireworks and smoke bombs, damaging vehicles and throwing eggs and rocks at store windows and homes in the neighbourhood.

     Several storefronts had their windows smashed by the mob, and police say early estimates indicate about $100,000 in damage.

     Not exactly in keeping with the Canadian reputation for public order, is it? But the story continues:

     Insp. Paul Hamilton said police were initially called to a “mischief in progress” at Durand Park on Park Street South just before 10 p.m.

     Two cops headed to the scene, where they found a large group dressed in black — a number of whom were wearing masks, he said.

     “The officers approached the group and quickly had to retreat because they were being pelted with rocks,” Hamilton said.

     The cops retreated? Didn’t they have firearms? How much more provocation does it take to justify their use?

     Americans could tell Canadians a lot about such discourteous, indecorous groups. Probably the most important datum is that bullets affect them the same as the rest of us. However, that might be too harsh a lesson for our courteous, decorous neighbors to the North to absorb all at once.

---

2. The Civil And The Uncivil.

     Andrew Klavan has some observations about standards of courtesy on the Left and the Right:

     On the left was The New York Times, a former newspaper, which now reads like a cross between Pravda and a cluster of six-year-old girls who have just seen a mouse. On the op-ed page I like to call Knucklehead Row, David Brooks delivered himself of the opinion that the left is winning the culture war. How? By brute force....

     Now consider another Op-Ed, over at the grown-ups' table, also known as the Wall Street Journal. There, on the same day, Annafi Wahed, who describes herself as "a tiny, talkative South Asian woman who spent four months on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff," relates the tale of her visit to CPAC, the annual gathering of the conservative base.

     As Wahed headed for the event, her liberal friends expressed actual concern for her safety, as if she were descending into a den of violent ruffians. Instead, Wahed found a group of open-minded, rowdy-but-kind political thinkers. "I found myself singing along to 'God Bless the USA' with a hilariously rowdy group of college Republicans, having nuanced discussions about gun control and education policy with people from all walks of life, nodding my head in agreement with parts of Ben Shapiro’s speech, and coming away with a greater determination to burst ideological media bubbles."

     Yes, conservatives are better behaved. We don’t subscribe to the Left’s amoral “By any means necessary” method of gaining power. But just as noteworthy: we’re the ones having a good time.

     Remember: the Left is determined to bring all good times to an end. Fun is inherently apolitical, and has no place in the regime of those determined to wield unbounded, absolute power over all things. And while we’re on the subject, looky here:

     “There is no room for play in Islam. Islam is deadly serious...about everything.” – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

     How about that?

---

3. A Sad Necessity.

     Kurt Schlichter is fast becoming the Patrick Henry of our time:

     When the liberals and their squishy-soft allies in Conservative, Inc., start moaning about your dreadful incivility, that’s a clear indicator that you are doing something right and that you need to double down. Civility, once properly understood as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself, has morphed from an aspiration into a political/cultural gimp suit designed to prevent you from effectively asserting your interests and your point of view.

     For liberals, civility is a grift – they think it’s a punchline and they’re waiting to laugh at you for embracing it. It’s a way to keep you from interrupting their non-stop attacks on your rights, your faith, and your dignity by convincing you that it’s somehow wrong to get upset when, say, some Astroturf Tot backed up by a bunch of leftist Red Guard orgs like Planned Parenthood and Move On starts shrieking that you have blood on your hands.

     Please read it all. Schlichter is on the mark in all regards. Conservatives must take him seriously, as painful as it may be.

     I’ve said at least once before that courteous political discourse can only be maintained when you and your opponents are agreed on the ends to be sought – i.e., “the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” — but differ on what means to employ. When your opponents’ aims are absolutely opposed to yours – i.e., when they seek to destroy what you seek to build up – political discourse is impossible, and courtesy vanishes.

     Schlichter exhorts us to cast aside our fantasies of making peace with those whose aim is our destruction:

     [The Left] are not trying to reason. They are not trying to compromise. They do not accept the basic concept that all American citizens have inalienable rights and that the law must apply equally to everyone. They hate us.

     We are sub-human, unworthy of courtesy or respect. We have no rights; they might allow us some control over our personal lives, for now, but we exist at their sufferance. That’s their view. That’s their basic premise – and if you ever go on social media they will tell you. So it’s no wonder that they feel no need to be civil.

     Wake up. The truth is ugly, but it’s still the truth.

     In this as in all else, he hits the mark. For us to accept and absorb the lesson has become a matter of survival.

     Have a nice day.

Mark Your Calendars (Sticky; Scroll Down For New Posts)

     From March 2 through March 6, my science-fiction novel Which Art In Hope, the opening volume of the Spooner Federation Saga, will be a free download at Amazon. I’m trying to reignite interest in the series, so please tell your SF-reading friends about this offer.

Realities Ruefully Regarded

     Brace yourself, Gentle Reader. Once again the subject is race, and I know how cringe-inducing it can be.

     The stimulus is a missive I just received from a dear friend who confronts a serious race-related problem. He owns a home in a neighborhood that’s slowly turning black. Here’s his assessment:

     My neighborhood is on the verge of turning bad. I can feel it. Black percentage is tipping 20%, and the attendant crime is coming with them. So I'm listing and getting out before my equity starts to suffer....
     Neighborhoods are turning quick down here. I think there's some funny business - most of these new people shouldn't be able to afford these homes.

     I must emphasize: this gentleman is a gentleman. He treats each individual on his merits. Moreover, his eyes really see, and his ears really hear. If he says crime and disorder are increasing around him, then they really are.

     But like so many of us, he must deal with constraints on his decisions:

• He can only carry so much debt;
• He can’t commute an infinite distance to his day job;
• His wife has certain requirements which, if not met, could create domestic discord;
• It’s not just his neighborhood that’s metamorphosing; others nearby are doing so as well.

     Some time ago, long before I acquired my current convictions, I faced the same situation. I asked a friend what she thought I should do. She told me, without equivocation, that it was my moral and social duty to remain where I was.

     Yes, she was a left-liberal. She also lived in a very expensive, lily-white neighborhood with property taxes that would choke a tyrannosaur. Which brings us to our first citation:

     So much of the media, academia and politicians have no skin in the game which is why they rake individuals and groups they don't like over the coals; there is little or no cost to them. If a student pays for college and can't finish because the rules and regulations make it impossible, he or she loses all his or her time and money but the school gains whatever tuition has been paid and loses nothing. If their degree is worthless? No worries, the individual is out of luck and the school postures about the PC majors they include.

     Politicians make all kinds of laws and regulations on healthcare such as the ACA even if they don't work because their own healthcare is fine. The media glorifies killers and blares their antics 24/7, giving the next mentally unhealthy person the urge to copy such crimes -- but they never pay a price. In fact, they get higher ratings so there is no reason for them to restrain themselves or think that -- ethically -- it might not be the best option.

     We are fast becoming a society where some people have little or no skin [in] the game (such as those who pay no taxes) and others have a lot of skin in the game (those who pay high levels of taxes). Where will it end? What are the repercussions to our society? How different would our institutions be if administrators had skin [in] the game?

     Indeed. When the possible consequences of one’s decisions are death, injury, or impoverishment, it pays to heed only those with “skin in the game.”

---

     It’s commonplace for a man who wants to believe certain things to avert his eyes from countervailing evidence. Even smart people will do so. Wishful thinking isn’t confined to the subliterate.

     Smart people I’ve known – and I’ve known one hell of a lot of them – have routinely, even ritually blamed the pathologies common to black districts on factors other than race. Among conservatives, the most common retreat from race as a contributing factor is this one: “It’s the schools. They can’t get a decent education.” If you haven’t heard that evasion, you might be the only person in America who hasn’t.

     Which brings us to our second citation:

     I have more sympathy with the bromides of the Right, but let’s face it, they are bromides. Yes, bourgeois behaviors like education, marriage, and hard work still forge the way out of poverty in America. But I’ve seen schools in poor black neighborhoods, and I’ve met children there, and I think if you’re eight years old and your dad is gone and your mom’s on drugs and all your role models are gangsters...well, maybe it’s not so easy to get your bourgeois game on.

     No one can reasonably dispute Andrew Klavan’s bona fides as a serious and realistic thinker. Yes, the schools in which most American black minor children are incarcerated several hours per day, nine months per year, are mostly inferior to those that serve predominantly white districts...but there are questions to be asked about that:

• Who teaches in those schools?
• Who administers them and sets standards for performance and discipline?
• Are the standards, whatever they might be, enforced?
• What adults, apart from the official staffs, are allowed into those schools, and what do they do there?
• Are the students being educated, or merely housed, harangued, and / or indoctrinated?

     To the best of my knowledge, honest answers to these questions don’t exonerate race as a factor. Rather, they emphasize and amplify it.

---

     The shibboleth of “diversity” has been used to energize immense amounts of destruction – of people, places, and social harmony. One commentator, whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten, opined that the calls for “diversity” really amount to a policy of “chasing down the last white person.” Indeed, when we review regions known for prosperity and public order, it becomes clear that:

• Such districts are almost all nearly completely white or Asian;
• The migration of blacks is toward such districts, not away from them;
• When such a migration occurs, prosperity and public order suffer.

     Yet the madness will not abate. The wholeheartedly vicious way in which the apostles of “diversity” treat the subject is best exemplified by the James Damore scandal, and by the testimony of a recent emigre from YouTube – a wholly owned subsidiary of Google – that YouTube had established a “no white or Asian men” policy for hiring:

     YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.

     The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims....

     People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.

     Hiring on the basis of race is certainly not hiring on the basis of merit. It will most certainly increase social pathologies and reinforce the attitude among blacks that whites “owe” them.

     Along with those effects, this “diversity” scheme will worsen avoidable prejudices. I wrote some time ago:

     When a society makes special provisions for a particular class of persons, such that those persons have a good expectation of not suffering for illegal or antisocial behavior, it has committed the worst imaginable injustice against the persons in that class who honor their society's laws and norms: it has equalized the legal, social, and moral positions of good citizens and thugs. Thus, if ninety percent of such a class is law-abiding and decorous while ten percent is violent, dishonest, or disruptive, the latter category will come to overshadow the former in the perceptions of persons outside the class -- not because ten percent is a majority, but because that anti-social subgroup is identified with the class's special set of privileges.

     A class is defined by its legal and social privileges. The aristocrats of medieval times were not distinguished by their lineages or their deeds, but by the things they were allowed to do, without penalty, that commoners were not. There is reason to believe that the majority of medieval aristocrats were fairly responsible stewards of their lands and of public order within them. That does not justify the creation of a class of men who could wield high, middle, and low justice over others, but who would normally escape all consequences for deeds for which a commoner would be severely punished....

     Success breeds emulation. If there are advantages to be had from the ruthless exploitation of a class privilege, over time more and more members of the class will be drawn into doing so. Thus, the coloration given to the class by its privileges will become stronger and more inclusive over time.

     It cannot be made plainer than that.

---

     If there’s an ultimate irony to close with, it would be this one:

     Increasingly news is coming out of South Africa that white farmers are being murdered in ever greater numbers and the government there has made the first moves toward confiscating their prime agricultural lands.

     How did this racism get so far along before you heard about it?

     It’s because it goes completely against the Leftist meme that only whites can be racists and indeed the mainstream media told us that South Africa was to be the beacon for the new multicultural world calling it the Rainbow Nation. It is all BS of course as we have reported in previous posts archived here....

     More than 12,000 people have signed a petition asking President Donald Trump to let white people in South Africa emigrate to the U.S. amid a vote by the country’s parliament favoring a motion that could see South Africa’s constitution amended to allow for land to be stripped from owners without any compensation....

     The online petition calls on Trump to “take the steps necessary to initiate an emergency immigration plan allowing white Boers to come to the United States.”

     Boer is the term used to describe South Africans of Dutch, German or Huguenot descent, who are also commonly referred to as Afrikaners.

     [Applause to David DeGerolamo for the link.]

     To be fair, for those white Afrikaner farmers to come to the U.S. or Europe wouldn’t be a case of “jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.” Rather, they’d be “jumping out of the frying pan into a somewhat cooler frying pan that’s heating up rapidly as we watch.” Present trends continuing – especially trends in American and European immigration policies – the First World is only a couple of decades behind South Africa in rate-of-descent to “multiracial” savagery.

---

     Reality refuses to be disregarded without consequences. Consequences are upon us, and upon other nations that have disregarded race as a causative influence in crime, violence, public disorder, and social disharmony. If Herbert Stein were here, and if this were a discussion of some aspect of economics, government budgeting, or fiscal policy, he might say something like “If a trend cannot continue, it will stop.” But he’s not here, and anyway we’re not talking about such matters today. Not even the most cockeyed of cockeyed optimists could say plausibly that the “diversity” trend that has already harmed so many Americans and American localities will stop. Indeed, there are indications that suggest that it’s about to accelerate.

     Let the hate email commence.

I'm AGAINST Bringing in the White South Africans

I do understand that they're getting screwed over by the South African government, which is planning to confiscate all White-owned farmland in that country, without compensating the owners.

It's likely to be a horrible situation for them and their families. Other Whites in the country, you really need to be making plans to get out. You're a fool if you think they'll let you keep your businesses or jobs. Sooner or later, you'll either be gone from that country, or on the streets, begging - IF you live.

But - it's not our problem, it's Great Britain's and Holland's. Those are the countries that need to be planning on dealing with the White people displaced by government action. Those are the countries from which the White South Africans came. And, those are the places that need to take them back.

Not us.

We already take on too many of the world's refugees from OTHER countries' failed governance/colonialism. At some point, the chuckleheads in our government need to realize that they are NOT the Boss of All of Us, and they cannot tax the rest of us to salve their conscience for having made mucho money off other countries' exploitation.

Force the countries/people that caused the problem to deal with the results of their actions.