Sunday, March 11, 2018

Grinding Antagonists Get Comeuppance

Over the course of civilization man has created in excess of some ten thousand different rights.
Meaning everyone is just one right away from being a statist.
There must be a thousand different versions of rights.
There must be a thousand different versions of ethics.
There must be a thousand different versions of art.
"You believe in God? LOL! Which one?!"
Bolsheviks claim a "right" to torture priests.
NAMBLA claims a "right" to bugger your nine-year-old son.
Muslim claims a "right" to honor-kill his daughters.
"Why do you care if people believe in rights? It doesn't affect you."
All Sky Wizards are equally arbitrary, but my Sky Wizardry is natural, objective, and discoverable.
Do you not think animals have rights? Just because you "kidnapped" them? Maybe animals just don't have the same rights as you and the late Christopher Hitches and his epigones.
You know, like priests don't have a right to free speech. Because when a priest speaks, he doesn't merely speak. He "indoctrinates."
"Culture is religion externalized."
~Henry Van Til
Ergo, we won't have freedom until an aggressively secular elite imposes its high-sounding abstractions on on an atomized, deracinated populace
Gee, you'd almost think transnational elites have waged war, created refugees, and subsidized the importation of hostile alien hordes not to make us stronger.

Dear Rights Atheists,

I've still not found a so-called anti-religious war that wasn't waged by a wannabe, soon-to-be or current leader of a State.

Perhaps the deadly aspect of French Revolutionary State, Bolshevik State, or Mexican Freemasonic State is not the adjective.

Never forget. The first gods were not kings. Religion is the true old-time community. It is consensual. "Culture" comes from cult. Like versions of rights, some versions of cult are better than others.

We still have men in black robes who will have you, the peaceful believer, summarily executed upon refusal of their slightest punishment. Cannabis is the new pork.
The State itself fills the role of Deity in our modern compulsory religion. Heck, each State is even assigned a power animal and a gender (!). Your rights-theism may be incomplete.
Let's talk about it,
The Old Heretic in New Wineskins

Sunday, March 04, 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 my paramour a classic, maybe even Dream Cruise material. Never mind the mileage: you won't find much rust on that chassis. Then there's the drop-dead spoiler, the leg room, and a proud pair of headlights.  

No way around it, though. She's a battleaxe. 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 illicit liaison served 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--spit 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 marital bond? You may well ask. But you would only betray your woeful lack of sophistication. Precedent has long since been established. By our betters, no less. As any student of history--or court history, at any rate--will tell you. 

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

Lincoln trashed the Constitution to save it. Truman dropped the Bomb to save lives. Bush and Obama bailed out big banks to save capitalism. I see a pattern emerging here. So long as our supervisors are doing it, law, justice, Judeo-Christian morality, basic human decency, property rights and free enterprise remain intact.

Just this past week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was pushing for a US attack on North Korea in which millions may be killed. He said this weekend, “All the damage that would come from a war would be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security.” 

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 ( "[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. 

Wednesday, February 28, 2018


I stumble upon a vocabulary quiz in an online U.K. magazine. It consists of ten commonly confused word pairs. You know, words like lie and lay, tortuous and torturous, affect and effect, horde and hoard, etc. The editors claim only 1.5 percent of the U.K. population get all ten right.
I scoff. I take the stupid test. I click on the submit button and await confirmation of my excellence. 
What? It can't be! I scroll down my checked answers. Sure enough, a red "X" mars the sea of green check marks. It glares at me from the left margin of the passage "Don't just delve into the book. Make sure you read the Forward/ Foreword."
Wait. The word is Forward, isn't it? That's what you read before you proceed, i.e., move forward in the book, right? I swivel round my chair and pluck Thomas J. DiLorenzo's *The Real Lincoln*  off the bookshelf behind me. Sure enough, right there on page ix looms Prof. Walter Williams' . . . Foreword.
How many books have I read over the years? How many Forewords? How many times have I looked that all-caps word square in the face?

Still I processed Foreword "Forward"?! The self-loathing runs thick on this one.

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.

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

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