Love And Consensus

     Among the most dangerous of things, politically, economically, and socially, the false consensus must rank high. Half of Mankind is dominated by consensus thinking. Women find it extremely difficult to depart from the current “women’s consensus.” Thus, they can be misdirected by a false consensus, with results that are sometimes catastrophic.

     Men are not immune to consensus, but we have somewhat more ability to resist them, especially those of us who perceive clearly and accurately. Moreover, men’s innate proclivity for doing things by and for ourselves can also countervail a seeming consensus. All the same, there is danger in a pseudo-consensus for men as well as for women.

     (Nota Bene: I just tried to look up the plural form of consensus, and found nothing. As it’s derived from the Latin verb consentire, “to agree,” there is no etymologically correct plural for it. English speakers tend to avoid trying to pluralize it. Clearly, there is no consensus about the plural of consensus. Just so you know.)

     The deceivers among us strive to create seeming consensus that will direct us into their preferred channels. It’s especially significant in politics, from which we get the terms grass-roots and astroturf movements. Brilliant individuals have been badly misled by their impressions of “what everybody else is thinking.”

     Now we come to the title of this piece.

     My Gentle Readers don’t need to be told about the malaise that afflicts male-female relations. It’s bruited about sufficiently in the media, to say nothing of all the “self-help” books on the subject. And it’s kept men and women apart to a tragic extent. But if I may judge from experience, the reasons for that estrangement lie in exaggeration and anecdotes.

     Few men are really self-absorbed scalp-hunters and bedpost-notchers. Few women are really man-hating termagants incapable of satisfaction. Just because you married one such means almost nothing, socially. But as seems to be the rule, tales of such persons get much wider circulation than stories of happily mated couples. Ironically, it’s the good men and good women who are principally guilty of spreading them.

     The general belief in those false notions is keeping love-starved Americans apart. The frequent, heavily promoted diatribes about fortune-hunting women and “men going their own way” are the cause. The reality is considerably more benign. It just gets less air time and fewer column-inches.

     In concert with those false consensus, we have the problem of elevated expectations. Men seek magazine-cover dream girls. Women seek six-foot-three Adonises on horseback. A great deal of popular literature urges us to think they’re out there waiting for us. It ain’t so, and when we’re in our right minds we know it perfectly well.

     There’s a lot of money to be made from spreading tales of “romance predators:” men who use women for their bodies; women who only want to be supported like royalty. Romance novels often feature a male predator as an antagonist. Prenuptial agreements exist because well-to-do men fear women who have it in mind to “divorce rich.” And there are some of each roaming about. But though the general consensus suggests that they’re the majority, in truth they’re exceptions, and not even popular among their fellows.

     Singles who can bring their dreams back to Earth can find compatible mates. They can get the love, companionship, loyalty, and support they seek, if they’re willing to give them as well. All things have their prices, and the price of marital happiness is that you must provide it if you wish to receive it. Relationships in which those things are reciprocated are the kind that endure.

     Time was, that was more widely understood. But there’s that nasty consensus ringing in the backs of our heads. Surely it’s based on something. Dare a young, unmated American act as if it’s all twaddle?

     I have nothing supremely wise to say on this subject. It’s mainly a suggestion to look beneath and beyond the consensus. But if you’d like to see a delightful movie about such things and how they could work out for those who are realistic and candid, try The Ugly Truth. Gerard Butler and Katherine Heigl will get you laughing so hard you’ll hurt yourself. Trust me.

Does Size Matter?

     The arguments over political systems, what makes them possible, what undermines them, and so forth are doomed to go on until Man is no more. Some of the most basic ones – the fundamental questions beneath all political discourse – arise from considerations of size: How large or small should a political unit be to attain stability?

     The arguments over whether to tolerate “globalization,” and to what extent, are part of this. Commercial currents that flow above political units confound many people’s notions. Businesses that operate internationally seem to flout some of our political aspirations. Or perhaps it’s that they flout the aspirations of politicians; that’s equally likely.

     I’ve long held that bigness in business requires bigness of governments. There may be exceptions, but they would be cases where truly huge amounts of capital and labor are required to pursue such enterprises. However, when power-wielders turn their voracious attentions to business, it’s the biggest players that they go after first. Also, really big businesses tend to need more competition than the marketplace will naturally provide them; Alfred Sloan recognized that when he arranged for the divisions within General Motors to compete against one another. All this suggests that bigness, even if it confers an advantage in certain fields, comes with compensating disadvantages that limit its value.

     Many of the dynamics that characterize businesses in competition also apply to political units – governments. But governments are loath to admit it. The European Union came into existence mainly because of politicians’ desires to rule a nation larger than their homelands, a nation that could compete politically and economically with the United States. American politicians, analysts, and influential commentators encouraged it for reasons of their own, some of which are unclear to me.

     Large or small? World-girdling or localized? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? The questions are pressed in many fora. But answers are slow to appear.

     The following first appeared here on May 14, 2020.

---

     Wes Rhinier at NC Renegade has penned a short piece about what he foresees for America. His expectations are bleak. In particular, he’s troubled by the many plaintive calls for “a leader” for “the coming civil war.” Here’s the part that plucked at my fiddlestrings:

     We are all too divided. We all have our own ideas. It’s always been a problem in this liberty movement.

     I think a Balkanization is more likely to happen. Or maybe small confederations happen.

     For me, this called to mind the conclusion of Poul Anderson’s Hugo-winning novella “No Truce With Kings.” It concerns the efforts of an alien race to engineer a specific sociopolitical outcome for Man on Earth…by subterfuge and the use of alien technology to promote one faction in a distributed, multi-participant war over the others:

     “You wanted to re-establish the centralized state, didn’t you? Did you ever stop to think that maybe feudalism is what suits Man? Some one place to call our own, and belong to, and be part of; a community with traditions and honor; a chance for the individual to make decisions that count; a bulwark for liberty against the central overlords, who’ll always want more and more power; a thousand different ways to live. We’ve always built supercountries, here on Earth, and we’ve always knocked them apart again. I think maybe the whole idea is wrong. And maybe this time we’ll try something better. Why not a world of little states, too well rooted to dissolve in a nation, too small to do much harm—slowly rising above petty jealousies and spite, but keeping their identities—a thousand separate approaches to our problems. Maybe then we can solve a few of them…for ourselves!”

     The idea of federalism was an attempt to harmonize the large nation – by virtue of its size capable of standing against other, more rapacious nations – with the small community of independent identity. Federalism proposed a way of having many small, largely autonomous regions within a central structure with sharply limited powers that would defend all of them against invasion. But governments always suck power from smaller units toward larger ones, and from peripheral loci toward central ones. We might not have known about that dynamic two and a half centuries ago – we didn’t have that many examples of it to study back then – but we have no excuse for not knowing about it now.

     However, there’s more than one view about these things. Here’s another angle, from Tom Kratman’s very best novel:

     “Do you know why we band together into nations, girl?”
     The question seemed so totally out of the blue that Maricel didn’t really even comprehend it. She shook her head, a gesture that meant, in this case, I don’t understand.
     Aida took it wrongly, assuming the girl meant she didn’t know why. She answered the question herself. Pointing towards the flames, she said, “We band into nations for just that reason. In the real world, little tribes like TCS are destroyed. They can’t compete against determined bands of raiders. It takes more power than that to defend yourself against people like yourself, people with no law above themselves.”
     Ah, now Maricel understood the question. She wasn’t sure she understood the answer and, given that she was going to die, the answer didn’t really matter anyway.
     “It’s the flaw in some utopian schemes,” the woman continued. She looked at Maricel’s uncomprehending face and said, “You don’t understand that word, do you?”
     “No.” Sniffle. Just get on with it, will you?
     “Never mind; here’s the truth, a truth I’ve been trying to find for the last . . . well, for the last good long while. People band into nations, real nations—not travesties like TCS, gangs that fancy themselves nations—to defend themselves. It requires an emotional commitment. The limits of nations are not how far their borders can reach, but how far their hearts can. People with tiny hearts, people like TCS, can never reach very far, can never gather enough similar hearts together to defend themselves. Only real people, and real countries or causes, can do that. That’s why TCS is going to die tonight.”

     [Tom Kratman, Countdown: H Hour]

     Perhaps the question is multivariate, in which case the answers will be multivariate as well. At the very least, it’s not simply What do we seek for ourselves and how can we get it? but Are we able to do what it will take and endure what we must to remain that way? That all sociopolitical arrangements are inherently unstable doesn’t mean that all are equally desirable.

     Freedom is not the only good people seek from their political alignments and arrangements, as we should all know far too well. They also seek prosperity for themselves and their families, and security against threats, both actual and potential. And some – there will always be some – have a vision of “the good” that requires others to bend their knees and their necks:

     One female (most were men, but women made up for it in silliness) had a long list she wanted made permanent laws—about private matters. No more plural marriage of any sort. No divorces. No “fornication”—had to look that one up. No drinks stronger than 4% beer. Church services only on Saturdays and all else to stop that day. (Air and temperature and pressure engineering, lady? Phones and capsules?) A long list of drugs to be prohibited and a shorter list dispensed only by licensed physicians. (What is a “licensed physician”? Healer I go to has a sign reading “practical doctor”—makes book on side, which is why I go to him. Look, lady, aren’t any medical schools in Luna!) (Then, I mean.) She even wanted to make gambling illegal. If a Loonie couldn’t roll double or nothing, he would go to a shop that would, even if dice were loaded.
     Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg, but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws—always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.” Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”—not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.

     [Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress]

     Are Anderson’s mini-states impossible by Kratman’s logic? Or are Kratman’s larger nations doomed to deteriorate into tyrannies owing to the dynamic of power-seeking as Anderson has pinned it? And what about the people – “crazy as a Cyborg” or otherwise – who insist that the State compel others to bend to their preferences?

---

     The questions are inclusive and eternal. The answers are idiosyncratic and fleeting. The arguments never cease.

     And some of us just want to be left alone.

     “Politics and business… I don’t pay them no mind.” (Jesse Colin Young, The Wine Song)

This Rant Is Untitleable

     There are days I want to close my eyes and pray that “it will just go away.” For “it,” choose any maddening thing of your preference. I have a bunch of them handy for immediate application.

* * *

1. “Equality.”

     The Left has used “equality” as a shillelagh against the Right for many years. It’s time we took it away from them, considering the massive inequalities in the societies their schemes produce. But it will be a hard job. They don’t have a lot of rhetorical tools with which to hawk their wares. With “racism” dropping off he charts, they’ll keep an iron grip on the ones they still have.

     I read quite recently that in academic year 2024-2025, 68% of the college and university degrees awarded in the United States went to women. That’s quite an imbalance. Nor is the impact of it greatly reduced by the awareness that a large percentage of those degrees were in fields such as “gender studies.”

     Once all the relevant variables have been controlled, it develops that American working women are slightly out-earning American men. Dollars are easy to measure, so at least on the commercial front, it would appear that American women have achieved “equality.”

     Yet young women appear to be less happy, and less satisfied with their life choices, than ever before in American history. I’m no expert on what makes women happy; ask my wife, if you can get close enough. Still, if the studies and surveys that tell us such things can be trusted, it would seem that something is amiss for young American women. Whether their life satisfactions improve over time, I do not know.

     They demanded “equality;” they got commercial equality, plus massive advantages in law, institutional preferences, and social customs. They apparently didn’t get what they wanted. It’s worth a few moments’ thought, especially in light of the plummeting American birthrate.

* * *

2. “Inequality.”

     When I survey the political battlefield of our time, there does appear to be an imbalance that favors the Right. Consider this article from Britain’s Telegraph:

     Not so long ago, the stock image of someone from the far-Right was easily summoned: they’d be male, obviously, and very probably bald, with steel-toe boots and questionable tattoos. Times, however, have moved on: this week, it was reported that the Government had banned seven “far-Right agitators” from entering the country to attend a Tommy Robinson rally on Saturday. Three are strikingly telegenic young women.
     Among the verboten ones is Ada Lluch, an impeccably coiffed 26-year-old Catalan activist who has defended the Franco regime and had told the most recent “Unite the Kingdom” rally last September that western democracies have been “completely invaded”. Valentina Gomez, an influencer from the US, has also been barred, having told last year’s rally that “rapist Muslims” were “taking over” the country (she’s said she’ll still try to come on Saturday, though – via small boat). And Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a Dutch political activist and commentator, has been forbidden too, having lamented “the rape, replacement and murder of our people” in London last autumn.
     The face of the far-Right, it seems, is changing – and it’s becoming a good deal prettier. Part of the shift is due to a growing number of young people flooding into politics – many of whom are profoundly disaffected with mainstream parties – and bringing with them a native understanding of the importance of a good Instagram filter. At the same time, there seems to be a rising awareness across the movement that improving its “look” is vital to broadening its appeal, which in recent years has come to rely heavily on a network of highly prominent social media influencers.
     Of course, it suits the far-Right very well to have beautiful young women zhuzhing its image. Their looks, as much as their messaging, promise to draw in more men and open up new audiences altogether in the form of young women who, while once more wary of indulging in politics of this nature, are now turning towards it amid widespread disillusionment with modern life.
     But for many of the individuals involved, there are also considerable rewards to be reaped: fame, the wealth that can flow from success online, perceived “clout” within the community and the satisfaction that can come from speaking out about a subject they care about.

     Of course, given the Telegraph’s editorial proclivities, it must be “the far-Right,” that perpetually under-defined menace, that’s benefiting from the activities of “strikingly telegenic young women.” What, does the Left have no beauties of its own? What about all the Hollywood actresses that regularly express Leftist sentiments and contribute to Leftist causes? I could name quite a number of them. Is it the relative youth of the Right’s lovelies that pains “Leaf Arbuthnot?”

     As a rule, for a First World society, where the beautiful young women are headed is where the society is headed. The reasons “should” be “obvious.” P. J. O’Rourke made note of this in Parliament of Whores. That does bode poorly for the Left. But worse still is the habit unsightly, obese Leftist women have of taking selfies holding placards that say things such as “I WILL NEVER DATE A MAGA MAN.” Someone should talk to them about that.

* * *

3. Bad Judgment.

     Some prominent people have been shooting off their mouths – and their feet – in public recently. They’re drawing the wrong kind of attention. That’s not a function of intellect but of judgment. No matter how passionately one holds to a particular conviction, there are times to keep it to oneself. There are also good and bad ways to go about expressing it.

     Not long ago, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson went on a tirade in which he said that imprisoning criminals is “racist.” (See the first segment of this screed for commentary on that rhetorical weapon.) Now, this man is no Einstein, but a public figure should be aware of the implications of his statements. If the public were to become convinced that confining convicted felons is unacceptable, what would the response be?

     I’ve been predicting the return of the vigilance committee for some time. Brandon Johnson appears to favor that outcome as well. If he doesn’t, it would be damned hard to tell from his public utterances.

     On the other side of the fence we have Ben Shapiro. I’ve never had a high opinion of Shapiro as a representative for conservatism, but I was willing to allow that he’s reasonably bright. I don’t think I’ll make that assumption any longer:

Yes. If you are mentally and physically healthy, taxpayers should not pay you to retire at 65. When Social Security was created, life expectancy was 64. Today, it's 78.

Also, people require purpose. If you can retire and find purpose, go for it. For many, that's a bad idea. https://t.co/MrgtO0dEGT

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 12, 2024

     How old is Shapiro? He can’t have yet entered into the stage of life where weariness is a man’s constant companion. He can’t yet be hagridden with the sense that his life is drawing to a close. Yet he decries retirement. This is definitely a candidate for this year’s “What Were You Thinking?” sweepstakes.

     The American Dream includes several goals. One of them is surely a comfortable retirement in which to rest from one’s labors. Shapiro may have a problem with Social Security – I do, myself – but attacking retirement rather than the injustice of the Social Security system is the wrong way to express it. A genuinely bright person would have known better.

     Hm. Maybe it is intellect, after all.

* * *

     I think that’s all for this bright clear Tuesday in May, Gentle Reader. Enjoy the rest of your day. Stop by tomorrow for more effluvia from an overactive writer. And remember always:

• Gentlemen: The stripper isn’t really attracted to you. Faking it is just how she earns her living.
• Ladies: Those dollar bills in your G-string won’t go nearly as far as you’d like. Neither, sadly, will you.

Hard Lines

     I’ve been seeing a lot of propaganda such as the following:

We see this situation every day. It's actually VERY common.
Should a person in this situation be deported? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/G5X57mTtgx

— Gary M (@gman5180) May 17, 2026

     It’s a tug at the heartstrings. The poor child had no idea what was going on when her mother decided to wetback the border. She’s lived 18 years in the comfort and security of the United States, with all its riches and opportunities. In all justice, can we deport her for what her mother did?

     The empathetic response is to say “No, we’ll find another way.” Which is what the propagandist wants you to say. But that has implications. Back the child’s age off a wee bit. What if she’s 14? Or 10? Or 6? Or still in the cradle? The inclination of the empathetic is still not to penalize the child for the sin of her parents. That naturalizes her parents right along with her. You wouldn’t want the poor tyke to be shorn of her parents, would you?

     For that matter, what if Mom didn’t get knocked up until after she’d illegally entered the U.S.? Once again, her daughter is a helpless bystander in the matter. Birthright citizenship makes her a citizen from the instant she emerges from the womb. Add the humanitarian position that a child should not be unnecessarily parted from her parents, and that hauls her parents into legality right along with her.

     The law is supposed to be definite as many human propositions are not. It’s supposed to have a hard line around it, such that any person of ordinary intelligence can always know on which side of that line he stands. That isn’t always the case, of course. Contemporary “law” is filled with ambiguities. They’re often put there by lawmakers deliberately, to expand the powers of the State. Immigration and naturalization law is only one such case.

     The debates about illegal migration may bring about a change in how citizenship and legal residency are determined. But this aspect of the matter will continue to bedevil us. Children are especially vulnerable to the misdeeds of their parents. Americans are second to none in their inclinations to protect children. If we write new immigration and naturalization laws that do have hard lines around them, but preserve the tradition that one born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen from birth, then in cases such as the above, we’ll be compelled to separate children from their parents. Some of those children will become wards of the State.

     I cannot find a compromise position that would deal “fairly” with all cases. But as a departed friend liked to say, “fair” is just a sound that humans make now and then. It has no fixed meaning. Ask any minor child prone to shrieking that “It’s not fair!” Don’t expect an answer you can rely on in all cases.

Othering And Anothering

     Time was, I thought I was a pretty smart guy. I believed that I saw things clearly and reasoned accurately. Lately, I’ve become unsure.

     The human mind seeks categories. It looks for ways to classify people, things, and events into discrete boxes that partition experience into neat clusters with hard edges. That’s not a bad thing, in most cases. But it can run away from you, especially if you forget:

1. That we all reason from premises;
2. That the source of our premises ought to be questioned.

     We don’t acquire our premises by a logical process. A lot of us get them from indoctrination. Some of us are bludgeoned mercilessly for many years, until finally we conclude that the only way to stop the pain is to accept what we’re being told.

     When the pain stops and we’re free to think again, we must be ready to revisit those doctrines and deal with them as rational men.

* * *

     The above is very abstract: as abstract as I could make it. That’s so that it will be maximally useful to any Gentle Reader who thinks he understands it. Among our premises are some that have signs hung about them that scream “DANGER: Do Not Inspect Too Closely” in large block letters. If you recoil from addressing any of your premises, it’s likely that the memory of pain is what repels you. Indoctrination is intended to have that result.

     Robert A. Heinlein wrote a huge novel in which he used a “man from Mars” as his vehicle for examining certain common premises. It’s his most popular, most widely read book, in part because it seems to grant the reader permission to violate certain norms that are near-universal to the First World. Yet anyone who looks closely at the author’s life is struck by how far from the seeming exhortations of Stranger in a Strange Land Heinlein’s own conduct lay.

     Heinlein’s novel has value in that it questions premises and implies that the reader should do likewise. That is not the same as refuting them by an impeccably logical process. Moreover, to the extent that we of the late 20th Century set those premises aside, we only reaffirmed their importance. The consequences have all but shattered our societies. They have spoken in a voice of thunder.

     I could go on about this. On occasions I’ve done so. But I’ve lost the strength for it. More, I don’t think it’s necessary any longer.

* * *

     By now you’re probably wondering about what gave rise to this. As it’s an ugly subject, I’ll try to be brief.

     Tom Kratman, whom I esteem highly, has posted a set of assessments and predictions for the future of the West. His observations, premises, and expectations are much like mine, at least when I’ve had enough wine to be candid within myself. A brief, thematic taste:

     I think, in the first place, that those future saviors have probably added a capital crime, Civilizational Treason, to the books, that looks a lot like our definition of treason, but with an expansive view of "making war upon" and "giving aid and comfort."

     The implications of a crime of “civilizational treason” are endless. The core of the concept of treason is opposition to that to which one’s loyalty was premised. But Tom’s term requires that we ask what it means to be loyal to a civilization… and that compels us to ask what sort of foundation lies beneath the civilizations of the West.

     That’s a study to which men have given whole careers. It cannot be fruitfully approached entirely in the abstract. It requires a great deal of knowledge about the history of Western Civilization. It also requires the courage to be honest about the currents that threaten to sweep them away.

     The threats to any civilization are those ideas that cross-cut its premises, no matter how those premises were arrived at. But ideas don’t hang in the void, Victor Hugo’s notions notwithstanding. They require carriers dedicated to them and willing to invest their lives in propagating them.

     If our civilization is founded on certain premises, it behooves those of us who value it to know what those premises are, and to be prepared to defend them with our lives if necessary. The shortfall of persons who meet those criteria is why the enemies of Western Civilization are currently in the ascendant. Worse, a great many young Americans and Europeans have been trained like circus animals to deride those premises. That puts them in league with our enemies.

     As Thomas Sowell has said, the barbarians are inside the gates. As Marcus Tullius Cicero has told us, there is no greater danger to what we hold dear than the traitor.

* * *

     The key to victory in any conflict is knowledge. Sun Tzu said it first:

     If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

     But knowledge doesn’t hang disembodied in the void, either. It requires acceptance: your acceptance. If you reject the knowledge required to win, you’ll lose. Apologies for being so blunt about it.

     The critical knowledge comes from plain answers to these questions:

• Who is my enemy?
• What makes him my enemy?

     Those are precisely the questions we of the West have been most forcibly discouraged from asking.

     It is common among Americans generally that we are reluctant to name our enemies and to take up arms against them. Not our overt military enemies; we’re usually pretty good at identifying those. The enemies of Western Civilization: they who are actively working to smash the pillars of the Western temple. But to identify our enemies demands that we identify the pillars themselves. We’ve been irrationally reluctant to name and defend those.

* * *

     The above requires that we re-examine certain doctrines that have been beaten into us for many decades. Foremost among them is this one: that the greatest of all crimes is making others uncomfortable. To cleave to that commandment, we have restrained ourselves from defending the fundamental canons of the West, even as the Civilizational Traitors now among us have chipped away at them.

     If the West is to survive, we must overcome that doctrine. We must perform an othering. We must say, in a great and terrible voice:

     “You are the enemies of individual rights and responsibilities, of human freedom, and of the imperishable teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ. On these things our civilization is founded. Therefore you are our enemies. Therefore we will remove you, by whatever means may prove effective. No quarter will be given.”

     I submit that it’s time.

The Assault On Aesthetic Sensibility

     [I’ve had a supremely trying week, and find that I’m “tapped out” of fresh blather. Accordingly, please enjoy – if that’s the right word – the following piece, which first appeared here on December 30, 2016 – FWP]

* * *

     I’m a former – i.e., retired – engineer. These days, engineers come in a multitude of varieties, but there are nevertheless commonalities among us. One of those commonalities, perhaps the most important of them all, is this one:

Form Follows Function

     Aesthetic considerations cannot be permitted to eclipse functional considerations. If the device won’t perform according to its assigned function and specifications, it’s useless no matter how pretty it is. That much, at least, is easy to grasp.

     What’s harder to grasp is this: That which is functionally effective and efficient will also be aesthetically pleasing. Behind the human eye stands the human mind. It qualifies what the eye sees according to its comprehension of what lies within surface form. Thus many an object one would dismiss on purely aesthetic grounds becomes attractive, even beautiful, when one comes to grips with what it’s intended to do.

     An example: Just yesterday, the C.S.O. commented that in every science fiction movie we’ve seen that features a deep-space vessel, the ships have all possessed certain visible characteristic. She couldn’t imagine why that would be so. So I gave her the short course in interstellar vessel design – “Colony Starships 101,” with prerequisites in nuclear fusion and special relativity – proceeding from the absolute requirements of the undertaking:

• Must gather its fuel from space;
• Capable of attaining near-lightspeed velocity;
• Supports living spaces and functions that must not impede one another;
• Must endure continuous bombardment by tiny particles impacting at near-lightspeed.

     I did so as concisely as possible. The C.S.O. being bright, she grasped the requirements and what they mandated at once...and began to see the design of the starship in Passengers as inherently beautiful.

     The late, much lamented Steven Den Beste once wrote of how, once he penetrated to the functional requirements and design of even the most mundane device, it would appear beautiful to him. I submit that this is inherent in the mind’s aesthetic judgments – that an object with an assigned function will impress aesthetically in proportion to its efficacy and efficiency at that function. Inversely, an object without any function must stand on its form alone.

---

     Much of what we call “pop culture” offends me. I’m sure I’m not alone in that. Nor ought we to wave the matter aside with a grunt, mutter “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and pass on. Ugliness that pervades a society, displacing what men have cherished for ages as beautiful, isn’t a transient thing but a destructive force: an invasion of our minds and sensibilities.

     So when I happen upon a display such as this, my commentator’s side rears up on its hind legs with the need to emit a denunciation. Were those...persons really clothed? Not by any standard for clothing that I can imagine. For what, after all, are the possible functions of clothing?

• It can keep the wearer warm, or acceptably within the “blue laws;”
• It can conceal his sex characteristics;
• Alternately, it can emphasize those characteristics;
• It can enhance physical attractiveness;
• It can convey an allegiance, an intention, or a desire.

     (Note that I omit consideration of costumes, whose function is to evoke a story or story-setting, and of armor, whose function is to prevent or mitigate wounds. Those are quite separate categories and must not be judged according to the requirements of clothing.)

     Do the “garments” in the pictures at the linked site fulfill any of the possible functions for clothing? If your answer is no, then what are they intended to do?

     Take a few moments over it.

---

     I’m a curmudgeon, which is a subspecies of crank. Accordingly, it’s commonplace for me to compare current events and trends that offend me with ones from my experiences that I find more acceptable. That’s also an aspect of the conservative disposition: to prefer that to which one has become accustomed to that which is shriekingly new. When I write about aesthetic matters I try to quell my natural crankiness in favor of objectivity. Sometimes I even succeed.

     This time around, I consider the obligation to run in the opposite direction. For what you saw in the piece linked above illustrates something I’ve grown to regard as insidiously dangerous: the cumulative assault on what Camille Paglia calls “the Western Eye:” the aesthetic sensibility that has accompanied and perfused Western thinking for two centuries at least, and which is inseparable from our convictions about individual worth and dignity. The apostles of our hideously vulgar pop culture hate that sensibility and are engaged in a wide-spectrum effort to destroy it: with ugly, pointless “clothing,” “music,” “art,” “sculpture,” “fiction,” “movies,” and trends in locution.

     Why? Because Western thought supports and is supported by Western aesthetics. Because the ongoing assault on Western precepts:

• the sanctity of human life;
• the rights and dignity of the individual;
• the appropriate constraints on public conduct;
• the suspicion and limitation of power and those who seek it;
• the foundation of all that is truly beautiful on Truth Itself;

     ...cannot succeed unless the Western aesthetic sensibility is destroyed in tandem.

     A dear friend once pointed out to me that among the barbarizations inflicted upon us by contemporary television is a habituation to seeing a human body defiled in some fashion. Perhaps the best example is the regular use of autopsy scenes by shows such as CSI. The reduction of what was once a living, breathing person with rights, ideas, emotions, and aspirations to a bag of battered organs and leaking fluids does harm to our sensibilities in ways we hardly even notice as it occurs. Yet the harm is real. It goes horribly deep.

     Look for the parallels in “music” that lacks melody and harmony but is replete with obscenities and calls for violence; with “art” that depicts nothing and requires no skill to produce; with “fashionable” clothing that’s often obviously torn and otherwise distorted; and with “fiction” that focuses on humiliation, degradation, pain, and the reduction of the human person to something even the lowest of the animals would disdain.

---

     I’ve only scratched the surface here. There’s infinitely more to be said on the subject. However, I trust that my Gentle Readers, being Gentle Readers, will manage to carry the ideas forward for themselves.

     John Keats once wrote that “What seizes the imagination as beauty must be truth.” That statement has had a profound effect on my considerations of aesthetic matters. But its converse has been no less significant: What is true beyond disputation is inherently beautiful, as nothing that lies, distorts, or mocks the truth can possibly be.

     Just some food for thought for your Friday morning.

Book Review: "Mumbai Singularity"

     I’ve just finished one of the best and most daring novels I’ve read in many a year: Nym Coy’s Mumbai Singularity.

     This novel is extraordinary. It’s hugely daring; it speaks of beings and things well beyond the human plane. Writing gods and pseudo-gods into a novel is always tricky, even when they’re really just imitations, such as the “gods” in Roger Zelazny's “Lord of Light.” But “Mumbai Singularity" goes beyond Zelazny's conception, into places no reader would expect.

     Three planes of existence and activity are depicted in this novel:

• The strictly material plane: the grubby reality of 22nd Century Mumbai;
• The “augmented reality” plane of the Mesh, which connects the people of Mumbai, and to which two persons of power and wealth seek to “ascend;”
• The divine plane where dwell the gods of the Hindu pantheon.

     The interaction among those planes is intense. Each resident of the teeming city of Mumbai is equipped with a spinal antenna that connects him to the Mesh continuously. But when the Mesh is married to Hindu piety, prayer, and the “distributed processing” of the minds of millions of Hindus, something unexpected arises: consciousnesses abstracted from other material expressions. Some of those were once human; others never were.

     Wounded first-person protagonist Krishna Mehta is genuinely attractive and affecting. His mother’s love for him comes through without distortion. The irony of her repeatedly nudging him toward piety and to find a wife is capped perfectly by his situation at the book’s end.

     The novel's Supporting Cast is more substantial than is usual for a speculative tale. Rahul is especially sympathetic. Captain of industry Arjun Malhotra and fading actress Aishwarya Kapoor make for good antagonists. Dr. Iyer, whose determination to hold onto her dead daughter Aanya kicks off the action, deserves mention as well.

     The gods depicted are just ambiguous enough. Are they “real?” One of them takes umbrage at the suggestion that they aren’t. But is their reality human-contrived, sustained solely by the beliefs and prayers of worshippers? Unclear! And what of still higher gods? Without the prayers of millions of Hindu faithful, would they exist at all?

     The resolution will stun anyone, regardless of which theocosmogony he was reared in. Yet it is entirely appropriate.

     I can’t praise this book highly enough. It’s the best tale I’ve read in years. If it faces an obstacle for achieving a wide and admiring readership, it would only be the profusion of Hindi terms. An American reader who wants full value for the experience would be advised to read it at his computer, so that he can Google the unfamiliar terms as he encounters them.

     Yet this is the author's first novel! What on Earth -- or off it -- could she do in a second one?

     Highly and unreservedly recommended!

The Aliens Are Coming To Your Church

     This business about the Pentagon making its “UFO files” public has a lot of Christians in a lather. What will become of our Faith? What will it imply for the Nicene Creed? If there really are sentient aliens, will they have their own tentacled pentapodal Redeemers, or will they demand to share ours? If the latter, will depictions of Him as a standard human upset them or exalt them?

     I don’t get it. I especially don’t get the fears that the discovery of sentient aliens might invalidate Christian doctrine. But there appear to be a lot of people who fear exactly that.

     Some of the more militant atheists are strutting around, preening themselves over Christians’ fears and doubts. Never mind that as far as I’ve seen, nothing in the “UFO files” can be taken as strong evidence of alien visitations. Still, I must admit that I get a little amusement out of the panic over it, myself.

     Why the jitters? Why wouldn’t sentient aliens just be more of God’s children? And why insist that the existence of such aliens would throw the core story of Christianity, the ministry, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, into dispute?

     I don’t get it, but I must admit that there’s a lot I don’t get, these days.

     Look, my brothers and sisters in Christ: God’s ways are not ours. In particular, He can do a lot of things we can’t. He created our universe: every scrap of matter-energy in it. In doing so, He created time itself. For time will only exist and have relevance in a matter-filled cosmos.

     It’s possible that we are His only sentient children. But it’s also possible that we’re not. We’re fallen, and needed to be Redeemed, so maybe other, nonhuman civilizations needed – or need – that too. But maybe, as in C. S. Lewis’s Space Trilogy, those other civilizations are un-fallen. Wouldn’t it be a kick in the head to learn that humans are the “black sheep” among God’s children?

     If our contemporary understanding of physics remains as it is, we’re unlikely ever to encounter another sentient race. Science-fictional speculations aside, we’re about as unlikely ever to be sure we’ve heard from one. Those speculations can be fun, but unless and until the highly improbable happens and we receive a delegation from Ophiuchus or Aldebaran, we shouldn’t trouble ourselves over them.

     But you know what would be maximally disturbing, something that would floor even your humble Curmudgeon? Being visited or contacted by humans in another solar system. Humans exactly like ourselves, who could interbreed with us. Add this to the pot: They already know about the Passion and Resurrection. No, Christ didn’t come to their world as He did to ours. We of Terra revolving around Sol are the lucky ones who had Him visit in human flesh. But it was the greatest Event of all history, and all sentients everywhere know about it.

     Which implication would weigh heavier: that only Terra was privileged to have the Son of God walk among us, or that of all the humans in the universe, only we of Terra fell so far from grace that we needed Him and His Sacrifice of Himself?

     In this connection, there’s a delightful novel: Space Princess, by Jon Mollison. Give it a look. Among other things, it establishes beyond doubt that I’m not the only crazy Catholic writing fiction today.

     Well, as much fun as such imaginings are, what ought to matter to a Christian, alive here and now on Terra, is the state of his own soul. We can confidently leave the souls and salvations of sentients elsewhere in the cosmos to God, don’t you think?

The Sacred And The State

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. As you know, I’m a Catholic Christian, so the statements and deeds of prominent Catholic clerics are of concern to me. Of course the highest of those clerics, the Supreme Pontiff of the Church, gets a lot of attention for his statements. After all, no one can claim to have more “followers,” or more influence, than the Pope. Even Protestants pay attention when he speaks.

     That suggests that a Pope should be extremely circumspect in his emissions. A casual remark from him can sway the opinions and decisions of a billion-plus people. Yet the late Pope Francis seemed to disagree. He’d opine on any subject, as if he were just another neighborhood boozer holding forth at the corner pub.

     Dare I say that the world is riven by sufficient strife that we do not need the greatest religious leader on Earth to add to it?

     No one is suggesting that papal infallibility should be held to apply to papal political opinions. Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinions have power. His words can sway elections and topple regimes. Granted that some regimes deserve a good toppling, that is not a course of action to be lightly undertaken.

     Pope Leo XIV, our current Supreme Pontiff, appears to be following in the late Pope Francis’s train. He’s emitted opinions about American foreign and immigration policy that, to me at least, seem unwise. They’ve put American Catholics in quite a dither. (Incredibly, he’s also suggested that Christians and Muslims can “get along” and “be friends.” On that last count, let it suffice to say that both history and current events disfavor that prospect.)

     Why is he saying such things? He hardly needs more attention than he gets in the usual course of things. He may feel strongly about his opinions, but men with strong opinions have restrained themselves before this, when it struck them as prudent. As his office guarantees that he’ll listened to by billions, I’d have hoped he’d be similarly guarded. The more influence you have, the more careful you should be about using it.

     But dare to say that on a social medium, and you’ll get a lot of unpleasant attention. You can’t criticize the Pope! He’s the head of your Church! He’s infallible! I’ve had other Catholics – and I shan’t name them nor criticize them for it – people who don’t know me at all, tell me I should go to Confession at once.

     That sort of discord within the body of the Church is enough to say to me, at least, that for the Pope to declaim on politics and foreign policy is a dangerous business. But there’s more to say than that. Some of it strikes me as imperative.

     Christianity is not like other faiths. Its Founder emphasized that each of us is responsible for his own moral-ethical stature. Saying “I was misled” at the Particular Judgment will not save you from Hell. Our individual decisions to speak or not, to act or not, are what matter, and they are solely ours.

     Politics and the decisions of governments are quite different things. God will hold the masters of the State responsible for their words and deeds in their turn, but the actions of a State are collective actions. They are undertaken on behalf of a nation – and in all cases, there will be some who benefit and others who are harmed. We must hope, often against the odds, that those decisions and actions will do net good rather than net harm.

     The decision to use military force is only the most dramatic such case. Nearly all military actions involve death and destruction. But a head of State sets out on such a course on the basis of the information available to him, which isn’t always available to anyone else. He acts in the belief that it serves a greater good. At least, that’s what we hope – and let’s be candid: we may be fools to hope so. The history of warfare among States is not kind to our hopes.

     A Pope who condemns a military action probably won’t be equipped with all the information that head of State had before him. The Pontiff may be right that an invasion or aggression is condemnable. But even in egregious cases, for him to say so openly can have unforeseeable costs. Some of those costs may be paid in blood.

     Many Catholics will disagree, but the matter is too fraught with peril not to speak my mind. The proper role of any Christian cleric, high or low, is to conserve and promulgate the Gospels, to counsel individuals on their decisions and actions, and to administer the Sacraments at need and upon request. He must not insert himself into the world of statecraft. Christ Himself said so:

     Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
     But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
     And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
     They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

     [Matthew 22:15-21]

     A Christian cleric must not go against the plain words of the Son of God.

Chronicles Of The Low-Trust Society

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. It’s a lovely day here on Long Island, New York: bright sunshine, gentle spring warmth, a sweet breeze redolent from the mulch pile around my front hedge. Yuck. With all that to be pleased by and thankful for, I thought I might say a few words about today’s plague of vipers: online scammers and their methods.

     The Internet is a marvelous development, but it does have a downside. Time was, if you wanted to defraud a man, you had to get close enough to him that he might just knife you. No longer! Today, scammers from around the world can ply their trades on targets from every land and clime. The victim doesn’t have a Chinaman’s chance to get him back.

     The predominant type of scammer offers his target something that’s too good to be true: easy money, in the usual case. “Guaranteed 100% return in just ten days! Just sign here. Oh, and we’ll need your bank account information so that we can forward your winnings to you.” Of course, if it’s too good to be true, what do the odds favor?

     Some scammers are “sympathy scammers:” “I can’t pay my rent! I can’t feed my baby! I can’t put gas in my car so I can get to my minimum-wage job putting panties on lamb chops! Please just send me an Apple gift card for $500!” I don’t think this variety fools many people, so why are they constantly bugging me? Must be my goofy looking face.

     But there are other subspecies of scammers operating today. Some don’t offer you easy money or the chance to “do good.” Instead, they tout their skills at doing something you wish you could do, but know that you can’t. The payment for those skills must be in advance, of course. Don’t expect to hear from them afterward.

     Indie writers are particularly promising targets for the skill-scammer. Even those of us who can actually write a decent tale are usually complete failures at selling our works. He who can persuade us that he’s ready, willing, and able to do that job for us looks like a dream come true. His come-on is an impressive-looking multi-stage “campaign strategy” that looks like something culled from an MBA program’s marketing textbook. Consult this weird Al Yankovic video for a taste of the “look and feel.”

     I have an email folder into which I put solicitations from such “promotion and marketing experts.” It’s bulging at the seams. I’ve asked other indie writers about their experiences, and they parallel mine: all buzzwords, no performance.

     But here’s a fresh one: a radio station wants to interview me! Wonder of wonders, a respectable format, interested interviewers, and an immediate audience to which to prattle about my books. Wait… what’s this? There’s a price? To “defray production costs?” Uh, thanks but no thanks, guys. Better luck next time.

     I’ve received two radio-station-interview solicitations this week already. I’m sure more will arrive with the morning dew.

     None of this strikes me as at all surprising. What does is that even with all the experience I’ve already garnered – some of it remarkably painful – the scammers are still coming up with ways to elicit my interest. Fresh new pitches! Fresh new offers! Fresh new plans! And for the low, low price of only $49.99!!

     At least they haven’t yet tried the late-night-TV commercial stinger: “If you act now we’ll double your order at no extra cost! Operators are standing by! Pay only separate shipping and handling.” But I suppose I should give them time.

     If an old Curmudgeon can feel tempted by such things after all this time, no one is safe. Consider this your heads-up:

     They’re out there.
     They’re clever.
     They’re hungry.
     They’re swarming.
     And they’re looking at you!

     Beware!

Practice Trumps Theory

     Happy Cinco de Mayo to all you Mexicans out there among my Gentle Readers. To the rest: don’t go out for Mexican food tonight. Trust me on that.

     Now have a snippet of dialogue from an unnamed story:

"Why is there a herring duct-taped to the ground wire?"
"Sir, I don't question your methods."
"That's not a method, that's madness. Witchcraft."
"Look, sir. Do you want to be right, or do you want results?"
"Well, results, of course."
"Then don't touch the fucking fish."

     That made me howl with laughter, not just because of the exceptionally clever phrasing, but because I’ve been there.

     In my years in engineering, I was often responsible for meeting a tight, rigid deadline: one which allowed for no slip-ups. On a couple of occasions there was a large pot of money at stake. Once it was in the tens of millions of dollars. Defense engineering can be like that.

     No one in his right mind would commit to such a deadline without the certainty that he can meet it. In the world of military procurement, there are no second chances. If Company A fails to meet the time and budget targets, Company B will be ready to step forward.

     But once you’ve committed, the watchword becomes No Experimenting! You must insist on proven methods only. The development team leader must resist any attempt to insert an attractive but unproven method with immovable firmness. Yes, the attractive but unproven method might later be proved better, faster, cheaper, or some combination of the three. But you can’t risk it with all those bucks on the line.

     That’s akin to blasphemy to a bright young engineer, only a year or two out of college, who’s sure he has a silver bullet chambered and ready to fire. The team leader was educated in the Sixties or Seventies; he’s hopelessly out of touch with what’s been happening since then. And boy, can that bright young engineer pout! He’ll also talk to his colleagues about his old fuddy-duddy of a boss. “Isn’t engineering about doing things the best way?” he’ll protest.

     It’s a sad lesson, but it’s one that must be administered and driven home with as many hammerblows as necessary. No: engineering is not about doing things “the best way.” It’s about meeting the specification within the given constraints, especially the constraints of time and budget.

     Getting that across to subordinates has been among the toughest and most thankless tasks of my career. I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

     But there’s worse: that bright young engineer might not be a subordinate. He might be a “compliance officer” assigned by the customer. Again, that’s common in defense engineering. You have to listen to him; he can throttle the money flow at his whim. And it’s amazing how intrusive and extensive his whims can be.

     There was one such occasion where a compliance officer wanted to have my team develop a very large program in a language none of us knew. I fought him off, but it was a memorable tussle. We delivered on time and within budget, but I never got another polite word out of him. Fortunately he was reassigned to another defense contractor after that.

     In such situations, when you have a love of knowledge and technology, the temptation to “go along to get along” is amplified by your own predilections. Here there be tygers! What a victory it would be, your subconscious whispers, to improve on the prevailing state of the art – even if no one knows you did it! Maybe the shiny new method will work!

     Well, yeah… but what if it doesn’t? What if you can’t get it debugged in time? You’re the point man; when you miss the deadline, the avalanche will fall on you. You won’t get to point at anyone else and say “Well, he said it would work.”

     So consider engraving this exquisitely concise and pointed motto on a nice piece of mahogany, inlaid with mother-of-pearl:

Don’t Touch The Fucking Fish.

     Hang it where all your people will look upon it daily. And do have a nice day.

Of Cars And Cash

     First, some music:

     Did you play it? Did you listen with attention? It’s one of the most moving odes to freedom ever put into song form. It’s musically brilliant as well. Every syllable and every note speak of the passage of time, the uninterruptible progression toward death, for a creature denied the freedom that belongs to it by nature.

     Yes, we make pets of birds, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, ferrets, turtles, wombats, aardvarks, tree sloths… oh, never mind. And it’s arguable that in some cases, their lives improve from domestication. But they’re still captives, held in thrall by a more powerful and capable species. The poignancy of birds kept in cages is particularly striking, considering how flight is possible to them but not to us except by artifice. Yet flight figures pre-eminently in our dreams of freedom:

     There she stood, her eyes screaming hatred and fear, like a trapped raptor – hawk eyes, he thought, which you better never look into. I learned that early, he reflected; don’t look into the eyes of a hawk or an eagle. Because you won’t be able to forget the hate that you saw…and the passionate, insatiable need to be free, the need to fly. And oh, those great heights. Those dreadful drops on the prey; panic-stricken rabbit: that’s the rest of us. Funny image: an eagle held prisoner by four rabbits.
     The MPs, however, were not rabbits. He made out the kind of grip they had on her – where they held her and how tightly. She couldn’t move. And they would outlast her.

     [Philip K. Dick, Our Friends from Frolix 8]

     Ponder that passage for a moment. It’s one of Dick’s best.

* * *

     Humans don’t make pets of other humans. At least, not often in the First World. It’s one of those things that’s “not done.” Our civilizations have progressed sufficiently that we understand the wrongness of such a practice. Captivity is conferred on a man only by the force of law, as a punishment.

     Unrestricted mobility, limited only by the property rights of others, is regarded as a human right. We build roads and highways, cars, trains, boats, and planes, to actualize that right. It sits at the core of our concept of freedom: room to move.

     But we do endure some limitations of mobility. Fuel, money, time, and competing responsibilities keep us within a short distance of some home point most of our lives. We accept those limits as the price of things we want: comfort, security, information, diversions, and so forth. They don’t hold us captive, really. They just keep us close to home, for the greater part of our lives.

     Yet look at how we cherish the machines that can take us away! Americans, above all other peoples, have known the mobility of personal transportation: the automobile. Walter Chrysler called autos “The most wonderful machines ever made by Man.” Whether we use them to go near or far, and often or seldom, they continue to be one of our foremost tangible symbols of freedom.

     That’s why those who despise individual freedom and seek to eliminate it want to take our cars away.

     The utter abolition of the private car wouldn’t be accepted by the American people. The power-seekers know that, so they use “salami tactics:” minor, seemingly modest infringements on our mobility, often in the guise of environmentalism. Increases in fuel and mileage taxes. Changes to the formulation of fuels. Ever-stiffening emissions and safety regulations. And think for a moment about the electric car, which has been touted so stridently as environmentally beneficial. Who controls the fuel for that?

     The “15-minute city” concept was a blatant stroke against personal mobility. It would have made the ownership of a car too burdensome to contemplate, for those within its limits. Give thanks that it’s been rejected so soundly.

     But quoth the Great Marketer, wait: there’s more!

* * *

     The ability to transact in privacy, such that only the seller and the purchaser are aware of the transaction, is an aspect of individual freedom that too many fail to appreciate. For quite a long time, most transactions were simple: you give me the product; I give you the price – in cash. Occasionally we’d write a check for things such as the mortgage or the phone bill, but the greater part of our commerce was in cash.

     But cash, it seems, has problems. The government agency that prints our currency is reporting losses. It just ended the production of pennies: they cost too much to make! Whether the rest of our coinage is endangered, I can’t say. But the penny’s demise has already been decreed.

     Then there’s our paper currency. Those steel engravings, produced with elaborate care, are a problem too! It seems that no matter how hard it tries, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing can’t quite make them un-counterfeitable. There are ways to make it harder, but every such tactic comes up against Porretto’s First Law of Engineering:

For every engineer,
There is an equal but opposite engineer,
And he’s straining to undo your work as we speak!

     Do not doubt this, Gentle Reader. Anyway, from the standpoint of a government economist, that means only one thing: physical currency must be obsoleted. Abolished. Supplanted by some electronic scheme of credits and debits that can’t be hacked. Something like credit and debit cards, but better, more secure.

     What could be better than credit and debit cards? Only a device that ties your balances, who owes you and whom you owe, directly to your person: an implanted identity chip! Your thumbprint would thereafter suffice to complete any transaction. The “reader” would access the ID chip, use it to inquire of the entirely-on-line Money Mesh, and issue a request for payment from whatever account you the purchaser designate. The seller would have to put his thumb on the device to “receive” the payment, of course. Sauce for the goose and all that.

     What’s that you say? Who would validate the transaction? Who would maintain the Money Mesh and certify its accuracy? Why, the government, of course, through the Federal Reserve System!

     And all privacy in transaction would vanish in a puff of smoke from a bonfire of twenties.

* * *

     I’ve written about these things before, of course. This piece addresses the hostility to personally-operated cars. This one addresses the threat to cash. But many a reader has told me I’m conjuring phantasms.

     I’d like to believe that. I hope I am. But I don’t think so.

     Hold onto your car and your cash, Gentle Reader. Shy away from these latest cars that transmit everything about your driving to a distant entity. The ones coming next year can rule you unfit to drive. As for cash, I hope there’s no need to advise you further.

     Have a nice day.

The Helpless Who Are Not Human

     If you’re a regular reader of Liberty’s Torch, you’re surely aware that we here at the Fortress of Crankitude are animal lovers. Not in the “PETA sense,” mind you; just as persons who cherish innocent lives. We’ve had pets of several kinds: dogs, cats, rabbits, turtles, hamsters, a white rat, a raccoon, and briefly an opossum who’d “tied one on” and couldn’t make it home after his bender. It always hurts when we lose one.

     Wherefore, upon reading about an egregious case of animal abuse, I did some research and discovered that aggravated animal abuse is a felony in all 50 states of the Union. However, it seems that prosecutors are as reluctant to try animal abusers as felons as judges are to put black felons in prison. Why? If the law is clear, why not enforce the law? Are our “enforcers” afraid of something, or are they just lazy?

     I suppose that’s a subject that needs further research. But this one doesn’t:

Abuse of the helpless is vile.
Including those helpless that aren’t human.

     Western civilization is distinct from all others in several ways, but this one is particularly notable: We condemn all abuse of the helpless. We don’t tolerate it in any form or under any rationale. When we see it, the decent among us – and that’s very nearly all of us – move against it.

     Wait, what did I just write? All abuse? All of us? Hm. That might demand a bit more thought.

     We permit Muslims abusive practices in the preparation of “halal food.” We permit them cruelty in their treatment of wives and children that no other Americans would be permitted. We permit black fathers to abandon their children, and black mothers to neglect them. We permit Hispanics their cockfights, as long as they “keep it to themselves.”

     Fury against the abuse of the helpless is a White thing. If you aren’t White, you might not understand.

     Even Whites make an exception, of course: abortion. Third-trimester and partial-birth abortions are demonstrably abusive, even barbaric, yet they don’t receive uniform condemnation. We’ve been told that that would be “judgmental.” God apparently forgot to include that sin in the Decalogue. Funny that we’re allowed to be “judgmental” about so many other things.

     There’s a continuum here. Abuses of humans don’t stand isolated in the realm of moral evaluation. The abuse of helpless subhumans touches them at the low end. Tolerating those abuses makes it easier to tolerate the abuse of humans. But the reverse is also true: tolerating the abuse of humans makes it far easier to turn aside from the abuse of subhumans.

     If I may inject a bit of black humor here, we’ve had a declaration on the subject from a voice of years past:

     If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begun upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time. – Thomas de Quincey

     That’s quite enough humor.

     Wasn’t the nasty little boy who pulls the wings off flies once held up as the prototype of the abuser-to-be? Have we forgotten how “great oaks from little acorns grow?”

     Man is at the top of the Terrestrial food chain by virtue of his intellect, his adaptability, his skills at fabrication, and his moral sense. Animals may kill and eat one another, but with vanishingly rare exceptions they don’t abuse the helpless members of the animal kingdom. Are we really superior to our animal brethren? Shouldn’t we be?

     I’d like to see our awareness of the abuse of the helpless – human and subhuman – restored to full horror. I’d like to see our censoriousness, our judgmentalism, directed unflinchingly at it. It seems to have slipped a bit. And should some judgmental type go a bit overboard and cripple an abuser he caught in the act, I’ll vote to acquit him. Maybe strike him a medal, too. A few examples would help to keep our less civilized fractions in line.