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

Friday, November 24, 2017

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: she's old as hell). OK, so there's not much rust on her chassis, notwithstanding the miles. You might call her a classic. Royal Oak Dream Cruise material! Nice pair of headlights, too! 

She's still a battleaxe. So it's not as if I strayed in favor of a younger woman. 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 so much more to it than that. 

No, my fling was different. I did it for my wife. I did it for the Greater Good. I did it for love. 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. In that case, though, you only betray your woeful lack of sophistication. Precedent has long since been set by our betters. Any student of history--or court history, anyway, which is the only kind that matters--will tell you. Sometimes you have to violate your principles to advance your principles. 

Those practicing statecraft best illustrate the anti-principle. Take Paul Ryan. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, he voted to approve the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). How, you may well ask, can a professed devote'e of free market principles defend bailing out banks issued bad loans? Ryan explained in an interview with the Daily Caller (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11661640/1/paul-ryan-bbt-shrugged-off-banking-bailout-street-whispers.html): "[W]e were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression," and that "if we would have 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."

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. 

But violating one's principles has a finer pedigree than that whippersnapper Ryan. Take America's Greatest President. Abe Lincoln 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 to put down an anti-draft riot, 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. 

Lincoln likewise violated the rules of civilized warfare to promote a civilized Civil War. He waged war on Southern civilians, killing about 50,000 of them, a good number of them slaves. 

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. 

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, 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.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Anti-Vaxxers, Churches, and the State

Anti-Vaxxers are no different from government. They use threats, not persuasion. There's nothing voluntary about subscribing to their anti-medical science views.
People obey the state not because there's an armed state agent in their face, but because the threat of an armed state agent is in their face in the future if they don't obey. People obey the Anti-Vaxxers not because toxic vaccine additives are in their face, but because the threat of illness spawned by those additives is in their face in the future if they don't obey.
Anti-vaxxers are like churches. They instill fears in children and adults alike. They indoctrinate. The First Amendment's free-speech protections ought not to apply to Anti-Vaxxers or churches.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Pro-Choice on Baby-Killing, Anti-Choice on Drugs

By what leap of law and logic do normies come to favor bans on drug use, prostitution, and gambling even as they embrace--nay, celebrate!--abortion-on-demand? I understand elevating a woman's "right" to choose to kill her fetus over her fetus' "right" to life. (I'm not entirely with them on this, but let's leave my apprehensions to one side for now.) But if a woman has a right to kill a miniature human being who has taken residence in her body because--duh!--it's her body, she *a fortiori* has a right to ingest, inhale, or inject any substance of her choice, doesn't she? I mean, it's her body!

Monday, October 02, 2017

Identifying Versus Issuing A Threat

Identify a threat to physical health, say from vaccination, and the freethinkers accuse you of being a crank at worst. Identify a threat to spiritual health, say from rejecting "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and they accuse you of *issuing* a threat. Just as if you're a criminal or a government. Go figure.