Ways of our ancestors.

SHOOTS DOCTOR

The “unwritten law” has often been enforced in Nebraska, but never in a more spectacular way than in the case of the killing of one “Dr.” G. W. Randall at Hastings, Neb.

Early in 1886, a man named Randall, claiming to be an eye doctor, accompanied by his wife, moved to Hastings and opened an office. He readily built a profitable practice. At that time, Adams county didn’t have a courthouse, and several of the country officers had their offices in the historic “Stone Block” at Second and Denver, among them County Judge Fleming.

Among Randall’s patrons were Mr. and Mrs. Hart of Edgar. They took their 11-year-old daughter, Lora May, to be treated for an eye disease. Late in the spring of that year, the little girl told her parents a terrible story of mistreatmant at the hands of Randall and his alleged wife. The distracted parents went ot he county attorney and Randall was arrested and brought before County Judge Fleming for preliminary hearing. He was bound over to the district court on the charge of criminal assault and his bond filed at $5,000.

While Randall and his attorney were arranging the ball bond in the county judge’s office, the little girl’s brother, a lad of 20, stepped into the courtroom armed with a rifle. Randall was between the brother and a window. The brother took quick aim, pulled the trigger and Randall fell dead with a bullet through his brain. He was shot squarely between the eyes.

After the shooting, the brother quietly left the court room, got into a lumber wagon and drove back to his home near Edgar. A coroner’s jury returned a verdict of “Visitation of Providence” and the brother was never arrested.

Randall was buried in the Pottersfield. Later his wife was brought to trial as her husband’s accomplice, but was acquitted.

100 Years of Progress. A History of the First 100 Years of Edgar, Neb. c. 1972.

Weekend Wonder

As in, I WONDER why this is not currently the headline on all media?

Just Kiddin'. I know why.

Perjury. It's not just a charge for Republicans.

I do realize that they are trying to run the clock out on the Statute of Limitations. Kinda' hard when every time you look under a rock, more lies keep popping up.

Quickies: An Observation About Morals And Standards

     “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!” – “Salvor Hardin,” Mayor of Terminus, in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation

     I puzzled over that statement when I first encountered it. I puzzled even further when Asimov wrote that it had become one of Salvor Hardin’s most celebrated sayings. But in recent years its significance has become clear – and important.

     We in the Right tend to pride ourselves on our morals and standards. That’s to be expected; what else, after all, distinguishes us from the Left, or from assorted vulgarians of no particular affiliation? But it’s well to remember that morals (in which I include ethics for the sake of concision) are not standards and should not be conflated with them.

     Morals are barely different from principles. With the exception of purely religious moral constraints, which need not apply to persons not of one’s own faith, both are precepts of right action with roots in our common human nature. They speak, albeit indirectly, of nasty consequences for their violation, whether in this world or the next. Thus, there are both moral and practical reasons for hewing to them.

     Standards are not rules of that kind. They pertain to “what simply isn’t done,” especially by “the better sort.” The consequences of violating a standard might range from being chided by one’s “set” to being expelled from it and treated thereafter as an outcast. But “what simply isn’t done” is more often founded on questions of style and dignity than on anything else. Moreover, context matters. You may not punch out the bounder who insulted you in private; it’s one of those things that isn’t done. However, were he to insult you – or worse, your wife – in public, thrashing him without soiling the drapes or breaking any of the crystal would be deemed acceptable. Allowing someone to demean you or your beloved in public without consequence is another of those things that simply isn’t done, and in these benighted days in which the option of pistols at dawn has been taken from us, other courses are seldom attractive or available.

     Much of the Right’s quandary over how best to respond to the Left’s torrent of denigrations, calumnies, and occasional outright violence is because we’ve tended to view our standards as equally as binding as our morals. It falls to me to inform you all that this is not the case – and furthermore, to advise you that our failure to fight fire with fire is in large measure how we arrived at a state in which only the emergence of Donald Trump had the slightest chance of saving the Republic from an irreversible descent into socialism.

     Thus Salvor Hardin’s epigram becomes comprehensible – and imperative. Verbum sat sapienti.

One More TIME!

Lock her up! Lock her up!

Why?

A recent lawsuit (please put that on your radar) that alleges illegal corruption to get more money for the Clinton campaign. There seems to be good evidence that this is a real thing.

On the other hand, that this surfaces now might just be a ploy by the Leftists in the Democrat Party (the Young Turks, so to speak) to capture control of the party apparatus, in time for the next national election.

Here is what might be happening:

• This lawsuit surfaces in time to queer (oops, Hate Crime) the Dems' chances of getting control of Congress. Like that was likely, anyway.
• In the anguished aftermath of the loss, plus the perp parade of national and state party leaders before the cameras, the Left-of-Leftists take over the party.
• Because their agenda is SO popular, they immediately sweep the field in 2020 (just kidding, they will sink like a boulder).
• Deprived of their rightful place, Da Peoples will riot, create chaos, and Bring in Da Revolution.

At least, I think that's the plan.

In the non-Bizarro world, they will lose, BIGLY, and - for those few who manage to stay out of the hands of the nut-doctors who would slap them into well-deserved confinement - they will spend the rest of their lives croaking Leftist slogans in their trailer homes. Which the sensible people will avoid, and warn their children not to approach the crazy ladies (of ALL genders).

Keeping the Bureaucracy in Check

It's not that simple to do.

This article touches on some of the different aspects of authority - do you give the agency wide latitude to decide how to implement an ambiguous law? Do you force them - and those that will be affected - to go to court each time a conflict arises (and, given the different decisions by different courts, keeping both the agency and those who are affected by the decision to be in limbo while the case wends it way through the system)? Will this keep smaller companies or individual citizens from receiving justice, due to the difficulty of pursuing a favorable decision through court actions?

One aspect that has led many to argue against the Chevron decision (that gave wide latitude to the agencies to interpret laws in a way favorable to them) was the intense politicization of government. No area, no agency, no branch was unaffected by this. It led to decision-making along party platform lines.

So, the process that might lead to Kavanaugh's being confirmed hinges, at least in part, on how he views the Chevron decision. Dems would like it to stand; the GOP would like it replaced with one granting less sweeping authority to agencies.

Violations of the 1st Amendment

A President that spies on reporters, claiming national security.

CBS News has the same story.

So, why is the Trump administration's action in the news. In this case, the information given to a reporter really does seem to touch on national security.

Sharyl Atkinson, a well-respected reporter, weighs in on the actions of both administrations.

Shadowing-Banning Explained.

I started this post days ago. I was going to schedule it for early this week.

That schedule may be interrupted. I keep finding more of the Quasi-Corporate, but really Ideology-Controlled Censorship. With the tech-corporate, ed-establishment, and NGO-leadership intertwined in their actions, this is reaching beyond the Collusion level, and into the Conspiracy realm.

Yes, private companies can control the flow of information. However, social media has been given a pass on the content on their platforms, because they have been treated as a common carrier.

...natural monopolies and near-monopolies were deemed to be “common carriers” upon whom the law imposed a duty of providing access on a non-discriminatory basis. The (classically liberal) common law of that era recognized that such entities could exercise market power, or engage in discriminatory conduct without fear of competitive check. Thus, the obligation to serve all on a non-discriminatory basis in order to constrain the exercise of market power, or invidious discrimination based on the preferences of the owner of the common carrier.

It's that non-discriminatory basis that may get them booted from the classification. They've clearly engaged in discrimination by viewpoint. The government could legitimately step in.

However, as a practical move, the timing may depend on the election. If the government signals their hand before the election, expect a frantic response to elect Democrats, involving money, even more censorship, and near-hysteria.

Waiting might be the more prudent move. Surprisingly, Trump might just pull that off - he is a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy, but has been known to move cautiously, given a good reason.

Last - just before this post was scheduled to go live, I found this article about Deep Fakes - videos that have been created, that appear to be the real thing. For a chilling example of what that might mean to you and I, there is this fictional story.

I'm Too Tired to Check, But...

...knock yourself out, if you want to.

In the area of non-conspiracies, but VERY interesting,

it would appear that Apple - the company that took privacy so seriously that they refused a court order to unlock a phone owned by a terrorist, just quietly folded and gave up the iCloud info from Manafort to Mueller.

Here's Apple's official statement about encryption and privacy.

Eh. When it comes to anyone associated with Trump, Never Mind.

Or, the modern version.

Pearls of expression.

George H.W. Bush’s mildly retarded son chose to ignore his enemies on the advice of his guru, Karl Rove. Didn’t work out well for him, did it? Perhaps Trump should counter-attack more selectively, but one reason he still has so many devotees is that he punches back at the Fifth Column (formerly Fourth Estate). Team Trump knows that the U.S.’s most dangerous enemies are within–from both parties, whereas Bush chose to validate himself by fingering a foreign despot so he could anoint himself Lawrence of Mesopotamia.

Comment by 36 ulster on “Trump Caves to “Enemy of the People”—Time to Show Loyalty to Those Loyal to Him.” By James Kirkpatrick, The Unz Review, 8/20/18.

Quickies: Hiatus

     Yes, I’m sort of hanging back from the blog. Mostly it’s because of a sociopolitical fatigue that mushroomed when my friend Joe died. Losing someone you love will always restore your perspective, though the price, admittedly, is much too high.

     But be not afraid, for I shall return. Meanwhile you have Linda and the good Colonel to amuse you. And I am making strides on Experienced. So be of good cheer, and remember what the great Robert A. Heinlein said in his most overhyped novel:

     “Most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.” [Stranger in a Strange Land]

     Later, Gentle Readers.

A Work in Progress - Captive Boy

It's the story of a young Celtic child who is taken by Viking raiders, and his fight to survive in a strange place. This is meant for kids - I think boys would find it worthwhile.

Quickies: For My Blog-Savvy Readers (Sticky Through August 20, 2018)

     Those who’ve been reading my crap for a while might remember Eternity Road, where I blogged before I moved here. I did so because I and my Webmaster had a falling-out, and I, being ignorant about blogging software, could not maintain the site by myself.

     However, I’ve begun to have misgivings about Blogger. Yes, it’s free of cost. Yes, it’s easy to use. And yes, I’ve been here for six years now and nothing terrible has happened.

     But it’s a Google platform. And Google, like Facebook and Twitter, has become increasingly hostile to opinion from conservatives and libertarians.

     So I’m thinking seriously about re-establishing Liberty’s Torch at a location less likely to turn on me without warning. But I’m as ignorant about blogging software as I was in 2012. So I need:

1. Suggestions about Web hosts that are committed to freedom of expression;
2. Ideas about what blogging engine I should use and what supports it requires;
3. A Webmaster who knows his stuff and won’t ask a fortune for his services.

     Would any of my Gentle Readers care to contribute their thoughts...or offer their expertise?

Envy Part 2: Preventing Envy-Powered Insurrection

     “You know, the Force has got a lot of power, but what makes you think it gives a shit about you? Who are you, anyway?” – Joe Jackson, “TV Age”

     The evidence is clear: demagogues, identity-politics hustlers, racialists, ethnicists, and feminists are striving to foment an uprising against the American order. Their principal fuel for the outrages they elicit is envy.

     The campaign for power through envy has deep roots. Those roots have struck through several institutions of importance to American society.

     The institutions of particular importance in this regard are:

1. Government-run and government-funded education at all levels;
2. The legacy news media, both print and broadcast or cablecast;
3. The majority of Christian parishes.

     (Believe me, Gentle Reader: penning entry #3 cost me quite a lot of pain. But truth demands it.)

     So far today, I haven’t told anyone attentive to contemporary trends something he didn’t already know. But such persons might not be aware of how frequently and unnecessarily they submit themselves and their dependents to the influence of those institutions.

     I’m sure I don’t need to dwell on the details. What’s most salient here is that there are alternatives, they are preferable, and the impact on the American future of a massive turning away from the corrupted institutions could be enormous.

---

     The gradual flowering of alternative educational institutions and services has largely gone unremarked in the press. Oh, they’ll deign to take notice when there’s a scandal, such as has beset a couple of the online universities. And now and then we’ll see an article that deplores the steady rise in homeschooling as somehow inimical to children’s “socialization.” But sober reportage about non-government-organized, non-government-funded schools and training centers is virtually nil.

     Nevertheless, they’re out there...and many American employers have noticed how effective they are at turning out young adults ready for adult responsibilities.

     Homeschooling involves sacrifice. The family that practices it must be sufficiently dedicated to its children for one spouse to forgo wage employment. In today’s America that comes at a significant price. The homeschooling family, unless the breadwinner is one of a very fortunate few, will forfeit access to a number of luxuries other families enjoy.

     But homeschooled children learn. One of the things they learn, in part by virtue of being with their own families at a time when other children are packed together with strangers, is that what others have is irrelevant to their lives – that what matters is their own preparation for life as an adult in a free society. Also, they learn far better than their government-schooled coevals that their parents love them. Verbum sat sapienti.

---

     Despite the emergence of alternative sources of news and opinion via the Internet, the legacy media still maintain a grip on the minds and sentiments of millions of Americans. As they march lockstep in an anti-American, left-liberal direction, their influence on their consumers is baleful. By emphasizing various manifestations of identity politics and other aspects of the “social justice” phenomenon, they lend legitimacy to the notion that how others are doing is more important to you than how you’re doing and what you could do to improve on it. While any information outlet can fall into this trap and many newer ones do, the legacy media are almost entirely mired in it. Indeed, they’ve embraced it.

---

     Schliemann took his duties seriously. His vision of those duties was clear, and quite at odds with the notions of most newer priests. He had little patience for the social-activist clergymen, whatever their denomination. They seemed to want to make their churches into gathering places for the envious and self-pitying. They were infinitely willing to use politics to impose their visions of good upon others. Father Heinrich Schliemann led no marches, signed no petitions, and never talked politics. While the prelates of the American Church tacitly permitted the social-activist priests to convert the legacy of Saint Peter into a stained-glass staging area for the crusades of special interest groups, the pastor of Onteora parish remained exclusively a man of God.

     [From On Broken Wings]

     Such parishes still exist. They can be difficult to find, as they tend not to “advertise.” Moreover, affiliating with one can involve driving a significant distance. But they’re out there, and they offer a healthful alternative to the heavily politicized parishes and churches that characterize Christianity in America today.

     The problem in the typical politicized parish arises through infiltration. Parish X might be entirely sound, until Father Y arrives. Father Y is a recent graduate of the seminary. He’s been subjected to a politicized education comparable to what children receive in government-run schools: nominally about his faith and the duties of a priest, but more candidly about how to conform his preachments and practices to the Causes approved by the left-liberals and homosexuals who run the seminary. And he has absorbed the lesson and made it his own.

     Father Y proves popular, for two reasons. First, he’s younger than the other clergy and therefore has an edge in dynamism. Second, he’s telling congregation X something a lot more palatable than traditional Christian teaching: he’s telling the communicants that what matters most is not how they behave toward one another but how they vote. All those “thou shalt nots” get shoved to the back of the stove...especially the ones about covetousness. Pretty soon the older priests find themselves under pressure to conform to Father Y’s methods and messages, as they “fill the pews and the collection baskets.”

     Though I’ve written about a fictional, nominally Catholic parish in the above, the model applies equally well to Protestant congregations.

     Once again, there are alternatives, and don’t let anyone tell you differently. Among others, there are private prayer and scriptural study groups. While such groups can’t administer the sacraments validly, they can offset the influence of a politicized pulpit. Moreover, it must be remembered that God does not judge us according to what parish or sect we belong to. He judges our souls, individually — and he who studies the Gospels and strives to the best of his ability to live according to Christ’s teachings will have no problem in the next life.

---

     Allow me a brief digression for the sake of validating the snarky Joe Jackson quote at the head of this piece.

     The emergence of a weird neo-pagan subculture whose devotees openly believe in magic, elves, dwarves, vampires, werewolves, zombies, and so forth, and in pseudo-religions such as George Lucas’s “Force” correlates strongly with the politicization of the mainline Christian churches. Like it or not, people have a need to believe in powers greater than those of the temporal realm. Take God away from them and they’ll find a substitute. The Communists have known this for a century; why don’t we?

     Popular culture has a lot to do with the phenomenon, of course. Video entertainments are buttressed by commercial tie-ins and other efflorescences that perpetuate the messages in the films and TV shows. When such things are pervasive, impressionable young minds can succumb to the notion that these fantasies have substance.

     Parents must involve themselves in counteraction. Entertainment is all very well. Entertainment that stretches the mind is valuable. But it must be confined to its proper place. In particular, it must not be permitted to engender cults, loyalty to which becomes dogmatic and church-like.

     J. R. R. Tolkien, the creator of the finest fantasy of all time, was reluctant to publish The Silmarillion because he saw what the cultism around The Lord of the Rings was doing. Professor Tolkien, a devout Catholic, understood the danger involved. American parents should understand it too.

---

     “There’s only one way to improve society. Present it with a single improved member: yourself.” – Albert Jay Nock

     If envy and the resentment of those who are “doing better’ can be prevented from taking root in young Americans, political movements that are powered by envy can be starved of allegiants. Granted that this would take time. Granted that immediate relief from the caterwaulings of the gimme-groups is not in prospect. But the American future is important, too. The violence and intimidation being practiced by envy-fueled forces will go on for as long as We the Decent and Ultimately Responsible treat the problem as “somebody else’s.”

     What part of the effort will you accept, Gentle Reader?

It's NOT Just the Social Media That's the Problem

Not just censorship.

De-platforming.http://deplatforming.com/

Refusal to provide financial services to SOME members of the public.

Pressuring companies through their credit card servicers to remove some of their customers.

How this is not considered Restraint of Trade, I simply don't understand.

The Pennsylvania Report

     Quite a number of readers have written to ask me whether I intend to write about this. A few have sent me articles and op-ed columns about it. I completely understand why they’ve addressed me. I’ve been looking into the matter as deeply as is possible for a layman, and I believe I’m ready to comment.

     But I don’t delude myself that everyone who reads what I have to say will stand up and cheer about it.

---

     The Pennsylvania grand-jury report on the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests contains statements that would shock even the most hardened consumer of crime news. It states that over 300 priests have been accused of such abuse. It states that the accused’s victims exceeded 1000 children and young persons. It states that 25 different bishops had been involved in concealing such behavior and protecting those accused of it. It states that the Vatican itself was complicit in some of those concealment operations.

     This is horrible stuff. Even though the time span covered by the report is more than 40 years long, it shocks and dismays parents who routinely entrust the safety of their children to Catholic clergy and Catholic institutions. It’s close to being enough to elicit attacks upon the Church itself. At least it’s enough to evoke popular fury upon parishes and dioceses where child abuse has been concentrated.

     But as with all reports of this kind, there are more facts to be assessed than the stories circulating have room for...or inclination to report.

---

     The report makes frequent use of the words accused, alleged, and accuser. Far less frequently found in its pages, though they occur here and there, are the words confirmed, confessed, and convicted. This is consistent with the allegations of concealment by Church prelates. But it’s also consistent with the possibility – whatever one might prefer to believe – that some of the accusers are lying, or more kindly, have been misled by their own memories or the exhortations of therapists.

     A man accused of a heinous crime should have the opportunity to defend himself before a jury. Stipulate that some of the accusations are confirmed as true. If any are untrue, it follows that the accuser should be required to present them to a jury for disposition. A felony accusation should not be allowed to hang in the air over a man, destroying his life without having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, such a claim gives the accused a good case for a libel action.

     The American tradition of presuming the accused to be innocent until he’s been convicted by a jury should not be set aside merely because the accused wears a cassock and a Roman collar.

---

     It has frequently puzzled me that, though child abuse can be found in all religions, denominations, and sects, only charges against Catholic priests get significant air time and column-inches. Indeed, I can’t remember even one case of a Protestant minister or a rabbi being reported as are charges made against Catholic clerics. Why? What makes such a heinous deed more newsworthy if the accused is a Catholic priest?

     The Church does impose certain rules on its priests that other denominations, etc. do not:

• The requirement for clerical celibacy;
• The requirement that priests live in rectories, apart from their parish congregations.

     These are severe restrictions. A healthy heterosexual man will be taxed to obey them no matter how firm his will. Perhaps most priests remain within them; I have no way of knowing, and neither does anyone else. But it is equally certain that some do not.

     It seems that the contrast between the acceptance of those rules by an ordained priest and his willful decision to ignore one of them makes a Catholic priest’s sexual excursions more glamorous, more attention-grabbing. Editors must think they’re more likely to sell advertising space. If they do reason thus, they’re probably correct. At the very least, America’s managing editors seems to agree about it.

     Still, I’d like to know the rate at which accusations of child sex abuse are lodged against certain other occupations that are routinely given responsibility for the well-being of the young:

• Protestant ministers;
• Rabbis;
• School teachers and administrators;
• Day care center operators and staff.

     I’d also like to know how often such persons face a jury trial, how many are convicted, and what’s done with such persons by those to whom they report, when there is such a higher authority.

---

     "A mechanical process can reverse a bit at random, but motivation acts like a field -- the elements won't change unless the field does." -- James Tiptree, Jr., "Faithful To Thee, Terra, In Our Fashion"

     The torrent of accusations, both confirmed and unconfirmed, correlates strongly with other social phenomena:

• The Sexual Revolution;
• The rise of homosexual activism;
• The development of oral contraception;
• The destigmatization of both adultery and divorce;
• The explosion of personal automobile ownership and motels.

     Correlation is not causation. No one could credibly argue that the incidence of child sex abuse would be markedly less were the above phenomena never to have occurred. However, social trends frequently engender attitudinal changes even among persons who are supposed to ignore them. Moreover, the incentive structures to which they point will have effects even on those who “aren’t paying attention.”

     Consider in this light another trend that correlates strongly with the five mentioned above: the radical decline in vocations to the priesthood. When it became apparent that the decline was not a momentary thing, many bishops became alarmed. The Church needs priests, but where was it to get them?

     The world had turned into a sexual playground. Everybody, seemingly, was “getting some”...except the men who had vowed lifelong celibacy in the service of Christ, the Church, and their flocks. The previous regime, in which a man was expected to marry at an early age, to remain faithful to his wife lifelong, and to support and protect her and her offspring no matter how many or how unruly, was far less attractive. Indeed, as a pre-teen I knew at least one priest who might have chosen his profession in part to avoid immuring himself in family life. Among other things, celibacy was less expensive and less a trial of one’s patience. Clearly, by the mid-Seventies that was no longer the case. The seminaries were emptying out in consequence.

     What sort of man would view the priesthood as more attractive for reasons of sexual access than the larger, overwhelmingly heterosexual lay milieu? And among persons of that inclination, would the proportion to whom pre-teen and teenage boys are a strong temptation be larger than in the heterosexual populace, smaller, or about the same?

     You can answer those questions for yourself, Gentle Reader.

---

     All the above having been said, the Church cannot permit the current plague of pedophilia – more than 90% of it pederasty -- to continue. Neither can it continue to think that incidents of that crime should and can be covered up.

     Highly orthodox Catholic writer Matt Walsh, with whom I share many sentiments, cites these measures as imperative:

1. All homosexuals must be banned from the priesthood.
2. Evil must be condemned from the pulpit.
3. The laity must wield its power.

     I have three problems with treating those measures, taken alone, as an adequate response. All of them pertain to incentives.

     First, it’s far easier to say that homosexuals have been expelled from the priesthood than actually to do so. (“Change is hard, and difficulty makes people impatient.” – Arthur Herzog) Many a bishop would succumb to the temptation to give it lip service rather than to “endanger” his diocese by emptying it of so many priests. Besides which, how is a bishop, or the administrator of a seminary, to verify that a young man who has not been blatantly sexually active is or is not a homosexual? The problem has defeated others.

     Second, while the laity has power and could, in theory, inflict severe financial penalties on parishes that tolerate homosexuals in the rectory, the prevalent inclination among Catholic laymen is to treat the matter as the clergy’s problem to be solved. Moreover, there’s both clerical opprobrium and the difficulty of making use of a new parish to be considered. When so many priests are less disinclined to condemn homosexual conduct than to condemn lay “judgmentalism” — often in the name of keeping congregants in the pews – it is likely that the power of the disincentives will prevail.

     Third, in the absence of other changes to the institution of the Catholic priesthood, the incentives that have drawn so many pedophiles – once again, more than 90% of the time the crime is pederasty — into the clergy will persist:

• Owing to clerical celibacy and the rule against the ordination of women, the priesthood will remain more attractive to homosexuals than to heterosexuals.
• The paucity of priestly vocations will induce bishops and seminary officials to downplay homosexual orientation as a disqualification for ordination;
• The priesthood confers a kind of authority over lay people, including their children.
• Priests are routinely given unsupervised responsibility for groups of children, especially young boys.

     The perpetuation of those incentives guarantees that as homosexuals and child predators are seined out of the clergy, others will filter in, albeit slowly.

---

     The Church has not always demanded that its priests be celibate. Indeed, the strict enforcement of that rule began in the Eleventh Century, so for half its history the Church accepted married men as priests. As there is no theological reason why a priest must be celibate – Christ certainly didn’t demand it of His Apostles – this strikes me as a practice ripe for reversal.

     Neither is there a theological reason that women cannot be ordained. The usual cant response is “a priest must be in the image of Christ.” But surely the willingness to labor humbly and lifelong, and to subordinate oneself through vows of poverty and obedience, is not confined to the male half of our species. Those virtues are more in accordance with “the image of Christ” than the mere possession of a Y chromosome.

     The Vatican has absolutely forbidden its clerics to discuss these possibilities openly with the laity. Nevertheless, several priests have spoken to me privately about such possibilities, even though in doing so they’ve endangered their status with the Vatican, and perhaps with their bishops as well.

---

     The subject has many facets. I’ve touched here on the ones that seem most in need of an analytical airing. Let it not be imagined that I regard myself as an unchallengeable authority on it. As always, I set down my thoughts first to clarify and organize them for myself, second for others’ consideration. And with that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers.

Pearls of expression.

Conscription was the main political crusade of the progressives, who insisted that the poor bedraggled cannon fodder in flyover country be forced into the service of the war god, but as for they themselves – why, they were needed on the home front to direct the war and make sure the peons stayed in line. Thus, [progressive Walter] Lippmann argued – successfully – that he would best serve the cause by working for the War Department. The chickenhawk is not a new species.

"God, War, and Progressivism. The historical roots of the War Party." By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, 8/16/18.

Too Funny Not To Embed

     If you’re a Star Wars fan, it’s even better:

     I can’t believe I hadn’t seen that before today.

Softening the Rigidity of Political Discussions

I happened upon an article about contentious discussion, and how that might be handled so to avoid triggering screaming opposition.

It was not, as you might think, primarily about 'the feelz' and that kind of stuff. Instead, it was filled with useful advice about how people might guide discussion to permit ALL to feel understood, heard, and able to engage with those who might have widely differing viewpoints.

I was intrigued by it, and want to learn more about the techniques for managing discussions. Face it, we all have friends and relatives who viewpoints and voting patterns are divergent from ours. Too often, attempts to discuss the issues have devolved into hurt feelings and hardened attitudes.

I've noticed that the more I work to address issues in mild-mannered terms, both online and off, the more I get, in return, a more gentle and reasoned response. And - after all - isn't that the point?

I Said it Before

But, here it is again - emotionally unstable women are better bed partners.

Not, however, necessarily better for the long haul.

Emotional Incontinence

     I forget where I first saw the above phrase, but it strikes me as immensely useful. It concisely describes one of the most important maladies of twenty-First Century America: the readiness and willingness to be “triggered” – i.e., to explode in indignation and sometimes worse – over an imagined slight. Sometimes the slight will have nothing to do with anything specific to the “triggered” individual. Indeed, that’s getting to be the case more often than not.

     Ace of Spades recently discoursed on this subject. Here’s the meat of his observations, also concisely phrased:

     The rule used to be, "If you lose your shit, you've lost the game."

     Now it's the exact opposite: "If you lose your shit and throw a tantrum, you win. Always. Because obviously the person who takes offense and flies into rage over nothing must have moral superiority over people who are calm and rational."

     This “lose your shit to win the game” phenomenon is particularly observable and pernicious in matters of verbal communication. Innumerable are the “trigger words” to which really tall and exceptionally whiny children react with a pretended fury. Previous generations of American adults would not have stood for it. Indeed, previous generations of American adults would not have exhibited it, save for a few emotionally disturbed types – and those persons would find that their behavior sharply limited their associations and interactions with others. They were about as socially acceptable as peeing on a friend’s living room floor, and for the same reason.

     Given the extreme value of personal restraint in social situations, especially those that are heterogeneous in composition, it’s critical that we understand how “lose your shit to win the game” has come to be an accepted practice. Ace’s observation above about the presumption that the “triggered” individual possesses some sort of moral altitude is the key.

---

     To be offended because someone has said something derogatory about oneself is normal. Indeed, it’s the reason for the development of some of Anglo-American culture’s more amusing social practices. Those practices have made the indirect insult a feature of a great deal of wit.

     Consider the following well-known exchange. George Bernard Shaw once wrote to Winston Churchill to announce the opening of his latest play and to send the statesman a pair of tickets for the opening night performance. He closed his missive with the following:

     “Bring a friend – if you have one.”

     Churchill, no slouch at riposting to such a sally, replied as follows:

     “Cannot possibly attend first night. Will attend second night – if there is one.”

     Though some have claimed that this exchange is fictional, it’s very much in the style of the two men to whom it’s attributed. More pertinent to my subject, it illustrates nicely how one can deliver a rapier thrust to another’s ego without saying anything openly offensive.

     This sort of humorous exchange of jabs is rare today. People are too ready to take offense, and to leap to the heights of umbrage, over the tiniest matters. Indeed, they find offense in the use of common words and idioms whose meanings have been pellucid for centuries.

     The reason for it, except in the most immature members of our species, is political: an attempt to employ collectivist guilt-tripping to score a political victory. Idioms that use “black” to denote ominousness or evil are interpreted as an affront against Negroes. Idioms that use “manly” to characterize various traditional virtues are interpreted as an affront against women. And God help the man who dares to call the behavior of some prancing poof of a homosexual “faggoty,” or who calls a heavily bearded “transwoman” garbed in a T-shirt, jeans, and workboots “he” before the creature has announced “her” “identification.”

     It does not matter that women, Negroes, homosexuals, et cetera enjoy extensive legal protections today, usually at the expense of men, Caucasians, heterosexuals, and other groups. It does not matter that the overwhelming majority of Americans go to great lengths to accommodate them in every imaginable context, including many from which they were once barred not by law but by general disdain for their proclivities. It does not matter than many of the accommodations made for previously “oppressed” groups have cost Americans their God-given right to freedom of association. What matters to the practitioners of “lose your shit to win the game” is winning the game – the political game, in which compelling normal persons to live and work in fear — to self-censor for fear of what might come out of their mouths if they fail to carefully screen each word against the dictates of “political correctness” — is the prize to be won.

     So widespread is this phenomenon that governments and giant corporations have bowed to it. One’s only safety against losing one’s livelihood, one’s social acceptability, and even one’s family, is not to care about any of it.

---

     I’m in a rather fortunate position. I owe no one anything, need no one’s approval to live as I do, and care nothing for the opinions of the perpetually “offended.” Thus I can say what I please – and I do. But I feel deeply for those who fear to express themselves in comfort, or who feel compelled to suppress their own, sincerely held opinions and convictions, owing to the pervasiveness of the “lose your shit to win the game” tactic. It doesn’t take a lot of the perpetually offended to create a climate of fear. The activist groups behind them are capable of making disproportionate amounts of noise and trouble for any selected target...if we persist in caring about the kerfuffles they whip up.

     It’s time to stop caring, and to react to their deliberately cultivated emotional incontinence the way Americans of an earlier time would have done:

“Put on your big-girl panties, whiner.”

     Though there are near-term risks, it’s the only long-term avenue for a return to a livable social order...if you want one, that is.

Why the Right Is So Against Censorship

Or, its sister, Not-Government-Censorship - that coordinated action that is orchestrated by the Left.

It has to do with reality. Yes, it would be so great to think that if you just manage to Shut the Fascists Up, they would go away. Of course, this assumes that everyone you are targeting IS actually a Nazi, rather than someone who is saying things you disagree with.

The thing is, censorship/near-equivalents don't work.

They didn't in Germany in the 1930's - people managed to print 'underground' newspapers and leaflets, communicate through non-approved amateur radio, and talk out of hearing of the official peoples. Those actions were a major influence on the course of the war.

They didn't in the USSR. The anti-Communists laboriously typed out their manuscripts - or wrote them longhand - and circulated them with mimeo, hand-copying, and other means. They had a major impact, before the copying machine was able to be used.

The radicals of the 1960's distributed handouts, found friendly printers to allow them to self-publish, and organized illegal gatherings to get out their message. For a while, they had a major impact on the politics of this nation.

It's even harder today. Trying to control the Internet, let alone message boards, alternative social media, informal gatherings online and offline, self-published books, and the Dark Web, is nearly impossible.

So, why are the Leftists making desperate attempts to stem the tide?

Because, in the minds of the people, they are losing.

What's the Left's response? Increase the pressure. Organize to illegally restrain trade (yes, that is an illegal thing) by pressuring businesses to refuse to sell to those they disagree with.

Like Alex Jones.

This will NOT end well.