Monday, February 19, 2018

Jehovah's Witnesses - "Shunning"

People, individually and severally, have a right to associate with, or disassociate from, any person or persons of their choosing, for whatever reason. Kingdom Hall is a collection of people. Ergo, it is free to exercise that right. 

I am not partial to the flaky, unitarian theology of the JWs. Nor am I partial to the tactics employed to maintain JW orthodoxy. The fact remains no Hall official put a gun to the Stuarts' heads. They could have adhered to Hall doctrine and maintained the personal ties they had forged over the years. 

They chose to leave and put those ties in jeopardy. There are pluses and minuses to membership in any community. No "shunning" can explain, let alone justify, this horrific tragedy.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Adulterous Fidelity

My wife found out about the affair. She acts all hurt and confused and humiliated and everything. As if I did something wrong. As if I betrayed her. 

She doesn't get it. The other woman is a coeval (read: old as hell). Sure, the bloom is not entirely off the rose. You might call her a classic, maybe even Dream Cruise material. Not much rust on that chassis, never mind the mileage. She sports a smashing spoiler, ample leg room, and a proud pair of headlights, too. 

She's a battleaxe, though. So it's not as if I strayed with a younger woman. That's what a cad would do. I'm no cad. Cads are interested in one thing and one thing only. I was interested in that one thing too, sure--but there was much more to it than that. 

My fling was for the Greater Good. I did it for love. I did it for my wife herself. Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his marital vows--stomp on them, wipe his feet on them, kick them to the curb--for his marriage. 

How does rocking the wild thing with a woman not your wife strengthen the bond between you and your wife? You may well ask. Ah, but then you would only betray your alarming lack of sophistication. Precedent has long since been established. By our self-proclaimed betters, no less. As any student of history--or court history, at any rate, which is the only kind that matters--will tell you. 

Sometimes you have to violate your principles to advance your principles. You want to advance your principles, don't you? 

Take Paul Ryan. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, this committed free marketeer voted to approve the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He also supported auto bailouts and a confiscatory tax on "excess" CEO bonuses. How, you may well ask, can a professed devote'e of the free market defend using tax dollars to bail out reckless banks? Ryan explained in an interview with the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/14/paul-ryan-explains-his-votes-for-tarp-auto-bailouts-and-tax-on-aig-bonuses/): "[W]e were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression," and that "if we would have [sic] allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn't have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. 

"It wasn't a fun vote. You don't get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have--which are restoring the principles of this country--I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation."

Same goes for my affair. The pangs of conscience detracted from the fun. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have--which are restoring the principles of Christian marriage--those principles had to take a hit so they could survive in the long term. So I soldiered on.

Give 'Em Hell Harry Truman faced a similar dilemma. 

Then came Give 'Em Hell Harry Truman? Did he ever. He nuked tens of thousands of innocent civilians to death. He did it to save lives. 




But violating one's principles has a finer pedigree than that whippersnapper Ryan's. America's Greatest President--Mr. Lincoln himself--knew he had no choice but to violate the Constitution if he was going to save the Constitution. He censored newspapers, confiscated handguns, instituted a draft, shelled New York harbor, intercepted the mail, imprisoned dissidents, deported a U.S. Congressman, and sicced the U.S. Army on the Maryland State Legislature to bar it from voting on a secession resolution. He likewise violated the rules of civilized warfare by waging war on Southern civilians in pursuit of his civilized Civil War. Fifty thousand Southrons died, a good number of them slaves, in the process. 

What is taxation if not extortion to advance the institution of property? What is quantitative easing if not a perpetration of monetary fraud to advance a sound currency? What is war if not mayhem and mass murder to advance humanity and civility? 

The anti-principle principle runs through every advanced society. Our infinitely wise and benevolent solons have long since embraced it. 

You haven't been paying attention--neither to history nor current events. may also thereby betray your half-baked morality tunnel. Homo sapiens has evolved. The species has emerged from the Dark Ages. Dogma now takes a backseat. The human drama is made of a richer fabric today.  

Strong marriages are the sine qua non of strong families Family is fundamental unit of society. Civilizations unravel without stable families. 








Sunday, January 14, 2018

ZOG "Secular" Democracies Are Confessional States

A Jewish child in the Papal States fell sick, so his Christian servant baptized him for the sake of his soul. (Though it was illegal for Jews to have Christian servants, Mortara's parents ignored this law.) Whether it was correct to do so seems debatable, with the official position of the church at the time being that you should not baptize a child against the will of his parents. The child then miraculously recovered.
The baptized are under the protection of the Pope, especially baptized children who are particularly defenseless and more easily misled. Given that the child was baptized, whether he should have been or not, and that he was in the Papal States, how could the Pope's government have let him be raised by unbelieving Jews who would teach him to reject Christianity? How could they answer to God that they knowingly let such a thing happen to one entrusted to their care when they could easily have prevented it?
The child grew up to become a priest and expressed gratitude for having been raised Catholic. He also wrote letters to his biological parents urging them to accept Christianity, but they never did.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabid secularists fail to appreciate the confessional nature of the freethinking, democratic,  and oh so enlightened modern Administrative State. If you will permit me to concoct a parallel scenario: 

A Christian child in ZOG (and now also islamicized) France succumbed to Holocaust denial, so his public educators sent him to re-education camps for the sake of his soul. (Though it was illegal to impart Holocaust denial to a child, Raoul's parents ignored this law.) Whether it was correct to do so seems debatable, with the official position of the State at the time being that you should not educate a child against the will of his parents. The child then miraculously recovered and became an ardent Holocaustian. 

The Holocaust-initiated are under the protection of ZOG, especially Christian children who are particularly defenseless and more easily misled. Given that the child was Christian, whether he should have been or not, and that he was subject to ZOG, how could ZOG authorities have let him be raised by unbelieving Christian parents who would teach him to reject Holocaustianity? How could they answer to the Sacred Six Million that they knowingly let such a thing happen to one entrusted to their care when they could easily have prevented it? 


The child grew up to become a curator of a Holocaust museum and expressed gratitude for having been raised Holocaustian. He also wrote letters to his imprisoned biological parents urging them to accept Holocaustianity, but they never did. 


Does the average rabid secularist object to Western democracies' Holocaust "denial" laws? If you want to learn who really wields power, just find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.


Saturday, December 23, 2017

'Twas the Last Play at the Big House

https://www.theonlycolors.com/2015/12/22/10646070/twas-the-last-play-at-the-big-house

Sunday, December 03, 2017

Tell it to the (Laconic) Spartans!

The context was Philip II of Macedon. After invading southern Greece and receiving the submission of other major city-states, he turned his attention to Sparta and asked, with some malintent, whether he should come as friend or foe.

“Neither,” was the reply.

He then sent the message: “You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city.”

The Spartans again replied with a single word: “If.”

~Derek Noonan

Sunday, November 05, 2017

Immigration and Racism

"It is perfectly true that our present immigration policy does (and should) favor North Europeans over people from other parts of Europe, while it discriminates still more rigidly against the entry of non-white races. But the basic reason for this is not a theory of race superiority, but that most fundamental and most legitimate of all human instincts, self-preservation — rightly termed 'the first law of nature.'" 

~Lothrop Stoddard

Thursday, November 02, 2017

"Free" Immigration & "Free" Trade Parallels

I see parallels between the problems of immigration in a world of state borders and international exchange in a world of state-managed trade agreements. NAFTA is 2,000 pages long and is riddled with subsidies and tariffs and sweetheart deals and byzantine regulations. Yet both paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan and left-libertarians like Nick Gillespie call it a free-trade agreement. Go figure.