Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Soviet Communism IS Linked to Atheism

Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, materialist rationalism, and most of the other causes the New Atheists support.  It used the same language, treasured the same hopes, and appealed to the same constituency as atheism does today.  When its crimes were still unknown, or concealed, it attracted the support of the liberal intelligentsia who were then, and are even more now, opposed to religion. …

Even after its evils became widely known, the same liberal intelligentsia continued in many cases to sympathize with the USSR and defend it against conservative and Christian critics.  Soviet power was—as it was intended to be—the opposite of faith in God.  It was faith in the greatness of humanity and in the perfectibility of human society.  The atheists cannot honestly disown it, and it is because they know this is in their hearts that they panic and babble when confronted with the problem.  Nothing else can explain the absurd denials they issue.


Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God, pg.137-138

Monday, June 26, 2017

God is the Leftists’ Chief Rival

God is the leftists' chief rival.  Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words “My kingdom is not of this world” that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular humanism.  Christ’s reproof of Judas—“the poor always ye have with you”—when Judas complains that the precious ointment could have been sold to feed the poor rather than applied to Jesus’ feet …, is also a stumbling-block and an annoyance to world reformers.  By putting such socialistic thoughts into the mouth of the despised traitor-to-be Judas, and by stating so baldly the truth known to all conservatives that poverty cannot be eradicated, the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power.

The concepts of sin, of conscience, of eternal life, and of divine justice under an unalterable law re the ultimate defense against the utopian’s belief that ends justify means and that morality is relative.


Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God, pg.134-135

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Why the Fury Against Religion Now?

Why is there such a fury against religion now?  Why is it more advanced in Britain than in the USA?  I have a good reason to seek the answer to this question, and I have found it where I might have expected to have done if only I had grasped from the start how large are the issues at stake.  Only one reliable force stands in the way of the power of the strong over the weak.  Only one reliable force forms the foundation of the concept of the rule of law.  Only one reliable force restrains the hand of the man of power.  And, in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principle obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.

Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God, pg.112

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Atheist Virtue

Unlike Christians, atheists have a high opinion of their own virtue.

Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God, pg.25

Friday, June 23, 2017

Don't Surrender Reason!

Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.

Thomas Jefferson (1822)

Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Attitude of Anti-Theists

The difficulties of the anti-theists begin when they try to engage with anyone who does not agree with them, when their reactions often a frustrated rage that the rest of us are so stupid.  But what if that is not the problem?  Their refusal to accept that others might be as intelligent as they, yet disagree, leads them into many snares.

Peter Hitchens, "The Rage Against God," pg.12

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

What Courage and Manhood Isn't

His idea of courage and manhood is to get together with a bunch of his punk friends and ride around irritating folks too good-natured to put a stop to it.

Hub McCann, "Second Hand Lions"

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Same-Sex “Marriage” vs “Interracial” Marriage

Proponents of same-sex marriage claimed that legal efforts to clarify the definition of marriage was a ban on same-sex marriage, but that wasn’t the case at all. A ban requires something already be in effect, have a history of practice. Same-sex marriage wasn’t being banned, and that’s a significant difference with the supposed parallel with interracial marriage. That was a ban in fact. 

Legal restrictions against interracial marriage was a revision to millennia of human history. Race had never been part of the definition of marriage, so the efforts to ban it were revisionistic, not an effort to conserve and protect marriage as an institution. Of course, same-sex marriage is also revisionistic, overthrowing the definition of marriage for all of human history. And this is, ironically, the actual parallel between the two.

Opponents of same-sex marriage weren’t seeking to ban any practice of common law well-established in human history, such as was the case in banning interracial marriage. It was a revision of current law, just as the efforts to legalize same-sex marriage were revisionistic and revolutionary. In both cases, those that sought to protect the institution of marriage from revision were consistent in the efforts to keep marriage from being fundamentally changed, to maintain a definition well-established in law.


Sunday, June 18, 2017

Importance of 2nd Amendment

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1833)

Friday, June 16, 2017

Liberals and Fools

My aunt sent me an article from the “Senior Beacon,” (pg.37) where the author, Dennis Campbell, changed the word “fool” in various Proverbs passages to be “Liberal,” followed by short commentaries.  The result is what follows:

Proverbs 1:7:  “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but Liberals despise wisdom and discipline.”  The evidence of this can be found on just about any college campus.

Proverbs 10:23:  “A Liberal finds pleasure in evil conduct, but a man of understanding delights in wisdom.”  Homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, abortion, euthanasia, foul and profane language, violence toward those who disagree with them—the list of the dark and dismal things Liberals hold dear is long.

Proverbs 12:16:  “A Liberal shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult,” and Proverbs 14:16: “A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil, but a Liberal is hotheaded and reckless.”  Just visit a liberal blog, or listen to most of Hollywood.

Proverbs 15:2:  “The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the Liberal gushes folly.”  Have you listened to Liberal callers to any of the conservative talk-show hosts?

Proverbs 17:16:  “Of what use is money in the hand of a Liberal, since he has no desire to get wisdom?”  Yet, they demand that we giver more and more of it to them!

Proverbs 18:2:  “A Liberal finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.”  Full of emotion and vituperation, but little substance.

Proverbs 20:3:  “It is to a man’s honor to avoid strife, but every Liberal is quick to quarrel.”  Just try to debate one.

Proverbs 23:9:  “Do not speak to a Liberal, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words.”  On second thought, perhaps you should not waste your time arguing with them.

Proverbs 27:22:  “Though you grind a Liberal in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him.”  Presenting a reasoned and factual argument to a Liberal is futility.

Proverbs 29:9:  “If a wise man goes to court with a Liberal, the Liberal rages and scoffs, and there is no peace,” and Proverbs 29:11:  “A Liberal gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.”  This can be verified by those who try to debate Liberals in our colleges and universities, or conservative speakers who face hostile Liberal students.

Finally, when you wonder why Liberals never learn from their disastrous social, economic and political policies, Solomon has the answer:
Proverbs 26:11:  As a dog returns to its vomit, so a Liberal repeats his folly.”


Thursday, June 15, 2017

Political Action and “Social Justice”

In brief, America’s experience to date demonstrates that pursuing social justice through political action generates at least six serious problems:

1. It tends to play into the hands of interest groups seeking beneficial legislation and the politicians who service them, thus becoming about self-interest rather than social good. (In other words, social justice becomes a fig leaf for self-interest!)

2. It tends to overlook the negative effects of high levels of government expenditure (including transfer payments) on the private sector. As a result, larger expenditures on programs that actually combat poverty deter private sector growth and thus become counter-productive at some point. The increase in the welfare of the poor as a result of the transfer of payments is more than offset by a decline in the number of jobs available to entry-level personnel, and so on. (Surely killing the goose that lays the golden eggs can’t be justice issue!)

3. It tends to involve the creation of very large government programs and bureaucracies, which in turn tend to generate bad unintended consequences.

4. It tends to reinforce self-righteousness and intolerance. (Anyone who opposes social justice is, by definition, unjust - a bad person!)

5. It tends to coercion. (Bad people who oppose social justice need to be coerced and it is a good thing to do so!)

6. Too much social justice leads to increasing levels of social discord, as supporters and opponents become much more polarized in their beliefs, and angry at those on the other side of the political debate.


Michael DeBow, “Social Justice: Reasons for Skepticism,” Areopagus Journal, Summer 2010, pg.21

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Sodomy's Destructive Force

Planting the seed of human life in the passage designed for the expulsion of waste not only causes disease, but also exerts a destructive force upon the individual soul and on the value of all human life.  

Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, p.358

Monday, June 12, 2017

The Importance of REAL Marriage

Marriage “sanctifies” what is otherwise merely self-centered pleasure-seeking, while also protecting individuals and society from most of the problems associated with “unwanted” children, sexual diseases and serial relationships.  (How many of our most pressing social problems today are directly or indirectly related to these factors?) Once a society abandons marriage as the prerequisite for sexual relations, however, there remains scant logical grounds to restrict any form of sexual deviancy or promiscuity.  For example, on what grounds can a society deny homosexuals freedom of conduct if non-homosexuals have been permitted to engage in similar disease-transmitting sexual acts?  And if public health considerations no longer outweigh the ‘right’ to sexual freedom under the law, what justifies continued limitations upon sado-masochism, incest, beastiality and even pedophilia?  A society is left with no basis for regulating sexual conduct but its surviving moral standards and the legal concept of “mutual consent.”  

Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, pp.318-319

Friday, June 9, 2017

"Playboy" Magazine and Social Engineering

Playboy magazine serves as a tool of “gay” social engineering in that the existence of a thriving pornography industry serves the “gay” cause by morally corrupting the men who use it.  It logically makes them less likely to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and more likely to support public policies which legitimize sexual license.  Exposure to pornography, especially at a young age, can also be a gateway into the “gay” lifestyle itself.  In the same manner, the “gay” cause is advanced by a successful abortion industry (which also arose in response to the sexual revolution).  The choice to kill their unborn children morally compromises both men and women (making them unwilling to criticize the choice to engage in other forms of immoral behavior), and ensures that the outcome of an unwanted child will not be a lasting deterrent to those who have chosen sexual license over family.  This explains why homosexuals, who by definition cannot bear children together, are among the most militant advocates of abortion on demand.  

Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, pp.307-308

Thursday, June 8, 2017

No Such Thing as Innate Homosexuality

In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, February 26, 1992, Dr. Joseph Berger, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, writes, “in my 20 years of psychiatry I have never come across anyone with innate homosexuality.  That notion has been a long proclaimed gay-activist political position, intended to promote the acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy, fully equal alternative expression of human sexuality.  It has zero scientific foundation, though its promoters  latch on to even the flimsiest shreds of atrocious research in their attempts to justify the notion.”

Scott Lively & Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika, pg.11

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

The Christian Worldview and “Transgenderism”

The Christian worldview cannot countenance a movement that plays haphazardly with biological sex and the promise of self-resurrection. The picture seen in the first two chapters of Genesis is one where divinely orchestrated binaries are fixed, intentional goods: Heaven and Earth, Night and Day, Land and Sea, Male and Female. The Christian worldview can, however, countenance a world like that of the third chapter of Genesis—a world in which people have broken perceptions of themselves brought on by the Fall.

The Christian worldview accepts the validity of people’s testimony that gender dysphoria is a real experience resulting in heartrending distress. The Christian worldview cannot, however, countenance the idea that men can become women or that women can become men. No amount of self-assertion or self-description, no matter the vehement sincerity, can result in individuals reconfiguring their chromosomes. Seen from this view, to exist as “transgender” is, itself, a social construct offered up by revisionists.

This is why simplistic or unwitting uses of the term “transgender” are problematic. The culture has intentions for the word that are incompatible with Christian anthropology. The culture wants individuals to accept, without a hint of hesitation, the idea that surgically altering one’s body can make a person a member of a different biological sex. Transgender may describe the range of experiences that people encounter, but for those in control of the word throughout dominant culture, “transgender” bespeaks a much weightier construct that Christians should be wary of casually adopting. “Transgender” is a neologism chock full of ideological assumptions that Christians cannot innocently use.



Monday, June 5, 2017

Liberals and the Emotional Fixations

Like a crack addict who can’t seem to think about anything other than his next fix, liberals can’t seem to think about anything but spewing their emotions at the world. They may be reflexively saying something that makes them feel compassionate, outraged, sensitive or angry, but liberals usually seem to be caught in the grip of some strong emotion.

Of course, it goes without saying that emotion unmoored from logic produces a lot of warped views, but it also mires a person in short term thinking….if you could even call it that. Because when you’re emotional, most of the time you’re not thinking; you’re reacting based on your “feels.” This is where a lot of liberals live 24 x 7 and so, it’s not shocking that their behavior is so thoughtless.


Saturday, June 3, 2017

Responsibility is Lacking in Today's Culture

“Responsibility” poses a quandary for us today, as it presupposes a standard toward which to be responsible. But as standards have been attacked as products of “white supremacy,” “patriarchy,” “imperialism,” and other nefarious forces, the notion of duty has steadily vanished.

The result has been a growing sense of entitlement and narcissism. Consider the widespread hostility toward a recent proposal to eliminate loan “forgiveness” for graduate students. The policy would stop the government from “forgiving” student loan debt after a certain number of years. The idea is that, if one is privileged enough to go to graduate school, one who isn’t shouldn’t be forced to pay for the one who is.

However, one outlet described the idea as a “sick joke. A billionaire president and billionaire education secretary, neither of whom spent a single day of their lives in public service before stumbling their way into positions of immense power, are targeting a program that’s basically meant to make life in underpaid government work a little more tenable.”

Only a mindset that says “I am entitled to graduate school on another’s dime” would argue that preventing other people from being forced to pay for (“forgive”) another’s loan is a “sick joke.” Furthermore, the idea that “public service”—meaning government employment—is nobler than private-sector work is only further evidence of our cultural entitlement. Private markets create wealth, products, and jobs, which improve lives. Government merely consumes the wealth private markets create. That those who consume feel entitled to the wealth created by others is the height of the narcissism that pervades modern society.

Without standards of virtue which transcend the self, the self becomes the standard. At that point, as Protagoras remarked, “Man is the measure of all things.” In today’s culture, that is increasingly so.



Friday, June 2, 2017

The Christian Faith Changes Culture

Many studies now show that religious belief and church attendance reduce the likelihood of unmarried pregnancy, crime, and many other negatives.  Even Bill Clinton asked, “Don’t you believe that if every kid in every difficult neighborhood in America were in a religious institution on weekends . . . don’t you really believe that the drug rate, the crime rate, the violence rate, the sense of self-destruction would go way down and the quality and character of this country would go way up?”

Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon. pg.147

Thursday, June 1, 2017

False Ideas of Liberation

False ideas of liberation also have consequences when carried out in nonreligious pursuits.  For example, movies, ads, and talk shows all suggest to men especially that either being single or acting that way offers varieties of physical pleasure and a sense of psychological conquest.  Surveys show that the reality is very different, and just what we would expect from reading the Bible: Married sex beats unmarried sex in both quality and quantity.  But that’s not what some people who view only the lies of both popular and high culture would suspect.  A few of those who live the lie throughout their twenties and thirties may somehow skip their way through the minefields of abortion, broken hearts, and disease, but as young bodies become old, alienation and loneliness tend to edge out lust.  When reality doesn’t sink in until age forty or fifty, lost decades cannot be replaced.  The situation is better for people who get married, but then a false understanding of freedom frequently leads to divorce.

Ideologies have also benefited from grass-is-greener yearning coupled with misunderstanding.  Ironically, many liberals during the 1930s embraced the greatest enslaving movement of the twentieth century—communism.  Some in the 1960s became supporters of Cuba’s Castro, China’s Mao, or the Soviet Union’s Brezhnev, even though their prisons were filled with those who had defended family-based freedom.  Communism’s bait-and-switch attracted those who did not realize the complications inherent in defining the results of Karl Marx’s mantra, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Beyond a bare minimum of calories and shelter, what are needs, as opposed to wants and desires? “Power to the people,” but which people?  The classic Marxist saying should more accurately have concluded, “To each according to his demand for power—and his viciousness toward those seen as obstacles."


Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon. pg.101-102

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

A HUGE Reason to Leave the Government Schools

Public (that is, government-funded, nonchurch) schooling caught on in the 1840s and thereafter, after the nation’s founders were gone. Many schools were not so much nonsectarian as anti-sectarian, and anti one faith in particular, Catholicism.  Catholics, perceiving the public schools as devoted to teaching Protestantism, worked to set up their own institutions and asked that some of their tax money be used to defray expenses.  The response was ugly:  Opposition among Protestants to the growing number of Catholic immigrants, largely from Ireland, and concern that children going to Catholic schools would grow up to oppose American liberty led to riots in the 1840s and 1850s.  One Philadelphia riot in 1844 resulted in thirteen deaths and the burning down of a Catholic church.

Some writers wanted to stop all immigration, but others looked to public schools to save America.  An article in The Massachusetts Teacher in 1851 stated that children of immigrants “must be taught as our own children are taught.  We say must be, because in many cases this can only be accomplished by coercion. . . .  The children must be gathered up and forced into school, and those who resist or impede this plan, whether parents or priests, must be held accountable and punished.”  The Wisconsin Teachers’ Association declared in 1865 that “children are the property of the state.”

Ironically, the public schools weren’t doing much to teach Protestantism.  The intellectual leader of the public school movement was Horace Mann, a Unitarian who pushed for largely secularized publics schools and overcame opposition from Protestants by assuring them that daily readings from the King James Bible and generic moral instruction could continue.  He succeeded largely because of bigotry and over the objections of theologians such as R.L. Danny (the Stonewall Jackson aide), who explained that teaching a person how to use a saw could be done in a value-neutral way, but “dexterity in an art is not education.  The latter nurtures a soul, the other only drills a sense-organ or muscle; the one has a mechanical end, the other a moral.”

Nevertheless, bigotry was so rampant that some Protestants were content to try teaching in a religion-less way as long as Catholics would be hard-pressed to maintain their own school system.


Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon. pg.91-92

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Prosecutor Is No Longer Just Standing By

Did churches in ancient and medieval times sometimes overstep their bounds?  Of course, but defining Christianity in terms of the sins that have been committed in its name is like defining electricity solely as that which made the electric chair.  The key question in American society is not whether church will overawe state but whether the state will deprive Christians the freedom to criticize what the Bible says is sin.  Will media and governmental leaders accept a diversity of opinion and tolerate those who say what God has said, or will any such comments be labeled Talibanesque “hate speech”?  The prosecutor is standing by.

Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon. pg.65

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Liberty vs License

The 1904 version of “America the Beautiful” proclaims, “Confirm thy soul in self-control, they liberty in law.”  Liberty, self-control, and the external control of law all work together to keep us from being enslaved by out temporary desires.  Two centuries ago, the antonym to “liberty” that sprang to people’s lips was not “slavery” but “license.”  A free person stood in the middle of a spectrum, not tugged by one mob to embrace libertinism or by another mob to hug dictatorship and political slavery.


Marvin Olasky, Standing for Christ in a Modern Babylon. pg.21

Thursday, May 25, 2017

The American Republic Has Fallen

Republics are created by the virtue, public spirt, and intelligence of the citizens.  They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them.

Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice 1811 to 1845

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Surplus Population?

The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population; or if he is not, how he knows that he is not.

G.K. Chesterton

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

The Feds Have NO Right Interfering With Religion

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States.

Thomas Jefferson (1808)

Monday, May 22, 2017

History Needs to Illuminate the Future

When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.

Alexis de Tocqueville, cited by Alvin J. Schmidt, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pg. 247

Saturday, May 20, 2017

The Media and Islam

The real Muhammad is no longer revealed in numerous books or in much of the media, a phenomenon largely the result of the ubiquitous presence of political correctness in the West.  With few exceptions, he is falsely portrayed as an irenic man who founded a religion of peace, contrary to the Koran’s numerous verses that specifically advocate violence and the killing of “infidels.” . . . 

In recent years, the Western print media, movies, and television have produced various negative portrayals of Jesus Christ and of Christianity.  But Muhammad’s past violent activities, clearly stated in the Koran and in the Hadith, are overlooked by the media and by apologists of Islam.


Alvin J. Schmidt, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pg. 208-209

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Reviewing the Heart

What lies behind us and lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Monday, May 15, 2017

With Absolute Power Lies Come True

Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophecies come true, but can also lie and make their lies come true.

Eric Hoffer, cited by Alvin J. Schmidt in, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pg. 187

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Saturday, May 13, 2017

True Law

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its command, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), The Republic, II: XXXII:33

Friday, May 12, 2017

Start Listening!

History repeats itself because no one was listening to the first time.

Anonymous

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Orwell and Huxley Revisited

We were keeping our eye on 1984.  When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves.  The roots of liberal democracy had held.  Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell’s dark vision, there was another — slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New Word.  Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.  Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.  But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.  As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.  What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.  Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.  Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.  Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.  Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.  Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.  Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”  In 1984, Huxley added, “people are controlled by inflicting pain.” in Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.  Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.


Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

It Is Essential to be Armed

[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

Federal Farmer (1787)

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Government-Directed Financial Collapse

The trend today is toward more and more control of the economy by government that goes directly against our traditions, against the ideas of freedom and individual initiative that made us great. . . .   There’s no question that the self-sufficiency and material well-being of Americans are being diminished by government.  We’re following England down the road to intellectual and financial destruction.

Barry Goldwater, 1975.  Cited by
Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985, pg.309

Monday, May 8, 2017

The Power of the State to Manipulate

Part of the reason for [the half-hearted and inefficient tyrannies of the past] was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance.  The invention of print, however, made it easer to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.  With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit it simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. . . .   The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.

George Orwell, 1984

Sunday, May 7, 2017

SCOTUS and the Abortion Decision Fraud

Justice Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  This was judicial activism of the boldest kind (though technically it only nullified state laws) and for many Americans ranks as the most notorious of all decisions by the high court.  It was the decision by which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional laws in 46 states which prohibited various sorts of elective abortions in the first six months of pregnancy.  Justice Blackmun claimed that the question of abortion was covered under an alleged “right of personal privacy” of the mother to dispose of what was allegedly a part of her body.  He admitted that “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.:”  But, “In a line of decisions . . . , the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy does exist under the Constitution. . . .”  Moreover, this “right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”  That a state was intruding upon a woman’s right to privacy when it prohibited elective abortions in early stages of pregnancies was apparently clear enough to Blackmun and his majority.

It me be supposed that the prohibitions against the taking of life without due process of law would have brought the Supreme Court down on the side of the state laws prohibiting abortion.  But no, according to Blackmun’s view, this matter of whether or not an unborn infant was such a “life,” entitled to constitutional protection, was too muddled to decide.  Blackmun wrote, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.  When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, Philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not is a position to speculate as to the answer.”  Instead of tackling head-on the issue of when life begins, Blackmun retreated to a doctrine of stages of the development of the embryo.  These were divided into three, with each corresponding period of pregnancy labeled as a “trimester.”  During the first “trimester,” the Supreme Court solemnly announced, the state could not interfere with the “right” of the female to abort her child-in-embryo.  This “right” extended through the second “trimester” as well, though the state might do such things  prescribe who might perform abortions.  During the third “trimester” a state was free to prohibit abortions.  The distinction the Court relied on was that after the sixth month, the infant could frequently survive if separated from his or her mother. . . . 

The propagandized and indoctrinated American people—taught to believe that every utterance of the Supreme Court was the “law of the land”—were slow to mobilize against this newest assault upon their ways.  Nor did they have any ready means at hand to state their horror and to deal with the perpetrators of it.  The liberal-dominated media accepted the decision as another victory for women’s rights.  A further decision in 1976 made this aspect of it decision even clearer.  The Court held “that states could not require either the consent of the husband, or—if the woman was an unmarried minor—the consent of her parents, as a condition for terminating pregnancy in the first trimester.”  In short, any child who became pregnant could dispose of it as she chose during the early months.  Liberals generally tried to keep such debate over the abortion issue as occurred publicly in the austere framework of “women’s rights,” and lectured opponents against introduction emotion.  Even so, resistance to elective abortion has become increasingly vocal over the years, and there is good reason to expect that it will eventually bear fruit in legal changes.


Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985, pg.293-294

Friday, May 5, 2017

Commercial Surrogate Motherhood

Media portrayals of surrogacy feature beaming parents and adorable babies, hiding the blatant class exploitation and profiteering, the commodification of women and children, and the serious, even life-threatening health risks to women who sell their eggs or rent their bodies as surrogates. The New York Times, for example, published a marketing article on surrogacy and placed it in the Fashion & Style section of the paper, as if children were must-have accessories for narcissistic elites. Drawing on patriarchal stereotypes, surrogates are presented as selfless, giving women who exist only to be of service to others.

In reality, commercial surrogacy is a predatory, profit-driven industry that preys on marginalized women, creating a breeder class for the wealthy, be they heterosexual or homosexual. It subjects women to life-threatening health risks to produce custom-made children and children being intentionally severed from genetic and biological sources of identity—human rights be damned. In essence, it is the ultimate manifestation of the American neoliberal project of capitalist commodification of human life to create profit and fulfill the narcissistic desires of an entitled elite.



Thursday, May 4, 2017

Are You Afraid of the Light?

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Plato, cited by Alvin J. Schmidt, “The American Muhammad: Joseph Smith, Founder of Mormonism,” pg. 247

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Read a Book — Drop the TV

A student’s freedom to read is nor seriously injured by someone’s banning [of] a book on Long Island or in Anaheim or anyplace else….  Television clearly does impair the student’s freedom to read, and it does so with innocent hands, so to speak.  Television does not ban book, it simply displaces them.

Neil Postman

Monday, May 1, 2017

How Genocide Begins with Groupthink

Perhaps most important to a genocidal plan is neutralizing any possible support for the victims. The Ottoman government maintained a well-coordinated propaganda campaign that vilified the Armenians in the eyes of their Turkish neighbors. In like manner, the Jews were demonized among their neighbors in Nazi Germany.

This sort of thing happens in all mass killings, including those done for reasons other than ethnicity. For example, in Stalinist Russia, several million peasant farmers in the Ukraine were deliberately starved to death in the winter of 1932-33 in what is known as the Holodomor. Soviet propaganda demonized these people, known as “kulaks,” as enemies of the people because they resisted the forced collectivization of agriculture, i.e., the confiscation of their farms. In Rwanda, Hutu propaganda vilified and scapegoated the Tutsis, often through radio, priming the popular mindset for the mass slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis during a 100-day period in 1994. The list of “final solutions” goes on and on.

Information warfare through a centrally controlled media is key to turning neighbor against neighbor. It plays a huge role in caricaturing perceived enemies and growing an us-versus-them mindset. In short, propaganda that psychologically manipulates a population is key to laying the groundwork for extreme social polarization, and ultimately for genocide.

This sort of propaganda thrives on ignorance and dissipates under conditions of social trust and general goodwill. This is why free speech and freedom of expression are not negotiable to any free society.



Saturday, April 29, 2017

Conservative Ideology

Conservatives generally favor not only the private ownership of personal property but also of the means of production.  Some refer to such a system as capitalism, though they are using Marxist terminology when they do so.  Generally speaking, they believe that property justly acquired belongs to the owner by right.  If they subscribe to the natural law-nature rights philosophy—not all conservatives do—, they believed that private property is a natural right.  Conservatives usually do not subscribe to the current doctrine of “human rights” because it is a phrase contrived to leave property rights out of the definition of rights.  Conservatives favor freedom of enterprise, though they differ among themselves as to the extent to which it should prevail.  They generally tend to oppose both government intervention in enterprise by regulation and control or government engaging in economic undertakings.  They tend to favor a free market, oppose the exclusion of foreigners from the American market or the granting of monopolies by government.  They differ considerably over the desirability of “antitrust” legislation, but it has bee in effect for so long that it rarely comes up as an issue.

As a rule, conservatives are constitutionalists.  That is, they believe in limited government.  They hold that government is a dangerous instrument, and that it is necessary  to take measures to contain and restrict it.  The American approach to that has been by having written constitutions.  These written constitutions are a contract between the governors and the governed.  Generally, conservatives favor a government of laws and not of men, and that the law for the United States government is the United States Constitution.  Conservatives do not accept out of hand the notion that the Constitution is what the courts say it is, since it is a written document.  They differ somewhat over the extent to which they would accept the view that a written constitution can properly be changed by judicial construction.  Traditionalists, who may be in the Catholic or English tradition, would tend to attach greater significance to court precedents than do conservatives in the Protestant tradition.  The latter tend to view a written constitution as fixed until it is amended by the regular and prescribed process.

Conservatives tend to be individualists.  If the sole issue were the individual versus the collective, as in collectivism, they would be almost invariably individualists.  They accept the primacy of the individual, his first ness and vastness, though most believe that in regard to the rights of the individual these are bounded by the necessities of living in society and of cooperation with others.

Conservatives tend to have the greatest respect and attachment for those organizations and institutions nearest at hand to the individual: the family, the church, the local community, the neighborhood school, the local government, as well as customs, traditions, and ways of doing things rooted in locales and regions.  Not all conservatives, or those who have some affinity for conservatism, will subscribe to this hierarchy of values.  Libertarians and rationalists (those who propose to be governed by reason alone) generally do not.

As a rule, conservatives are not revolutionists, do not favor radical and disruptive change, are not utopians, tend to believe, with Jefferson, that abuses are to be tolerated as long as they are bearable, are not relativists, and tend to believe that in the midst of change there are things that endure or are eternal.  They tend to focus upon the fixities, the unchanging, the underlying order, in contrast to thoroughgoing evolutionists.  They are more favorably disposed toward order, tradition, and authority, to the nature of things, than are Liberals and the like.


Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985, pg.287-289

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Study History to Avoid Genocide

Humans are very susceptible to groupthink, ignorance, propaganda, agitation, and psychological manipulation that weakens their resolve. People are also often all too eager to blame their own problems on convenient scapegoats. These human flaws clarify why “Never forget” is the cry associated with the Holocaust and all crimes against humanity.

This is why everybody must respect the study of history. After all, studying history is about remembering. It’s about learning from experience, which is why we must emphatically reject any attempt to water down the accurate teaching and study of history.