Author: Mark Noonan

Think About What You Know

Mark Noonan21 Comments

The thing about history and biography is that what is in any particular book about them is whatever the historian or biographer thought important and then their interpretation of the subject. A really good historian/biographer does, of course, try to stick to provable fact; additionally, if there is speculation, then it is clearly identified as such. But even the best have their biases and in addition to that, those who publish history and biography have theirs, and what you write better not be too far outside the publisher’s ideas. This does lead to a measure of conformity across the Narrative.

I bring this up because it is important to remember that what we “know” about the past is just what someone told us. Not too many of us have the time or inclination to go to original sources, after all. The Left is, these days, going “Aha!” about this – as if it were a new thing – and claiming that history has been falsified. It wasn’t that a historian had particular interests or ideas, the history was nefarious! Deliberately hiding crucial facts…usually because its all Racism and Patriarchy and such. And then the Left proceeds to produce its own histories and biographies…as if these don’t have their own biases. And given that the modern Narrative must denigrate the white/Christian/European, what we’re often getting in modern Leftist histories isn’t just the product of biases, but the product of ideological commitment…this is why you’ll seek books and articles essentially claiming that all European discoveries and inventions were actually made by some non-European ages before…what is left unexplained is why Invention X merely gathered dust until some wily European sneaked in, stole it and then presented it to the world as a New Thing.

What I advise is to take everything with a grain of salt; that is, think about it. And not just modern histories/biographies (which would be taken with a couple pounds of salt); everything coming out of the past. Take nothing at face value. I have retained my father’s books and so I go have a great deal of history and biography written before the modern Left took control of the culture, and I’m grateful for them. But even these I now question. Just to take one for-instance: in most histories of WWII, Patton is lauded as the aggressive commander pushing forward to victory while Montgomery is derided as a plodding soldier who only fought when sure of victory. And there is some truth in this – Patton did rush ahead while Montgomery very famously liked to prepare carefully before engaging in battle. But a couple things come out when you see the sequence of events and think about it.

First off all, Patton never faced defeat. This isn’t Patton’s fault, of course, but it is in defeat and retreat where a general’s qualities – if he has any – really shine. Montgomery commanded the British 3rd division in Belgium in 1940 and he had that outfit completely squared away. They moved with precision wherever high command sent them, fought very well and returned to England out of the confusion of Dunkirk intact and ready to go back into the fight. That is generalship of the highest order. To give an American comparison – in the Philippines, MacArthur’s first idea was to defend the whole country. This was wrong – indeed, downright foolish – but when it became clear that MacArthur had picked the wrong strategy, he quickly organized a double-retrograde maneuver of his forces from north and south Luzon into the Bataan peninsula, thus ensuring a prolonged Fil-American resistance there, gravely upsetting Japan’s timetable of conquest. MacArthur had many brilliant military actions before and after, but most people who really know consider this MacArthur’s shining moment.

After retreat, attack. And most histories laud the grand attack, if successful. This is because it is dramatic and often has a large effect on subsequent events. And what people like is the dramatic breakthrough; the sudden route of the foe. This is why the German invasion of France in 1940 captures the imagination – it just amazes people to think about it. But was it good generalship? I don’t think it was. Sure, the Germans got lucky – and most lucky in the lethargy of the French high command – but the bloody thing should have fallen flat on its face. The least bit of energy and enterprise on the part of the French and instead of a dramatic drive to the sea, what the Germans would have had was the catastrophic destruction of their best armored forces. Luck in war is important. Napoleon allegedly asked men newly being appointed to general, “are you lucky?”. But you also can’t count on luck…and so the more famous Napoleonic statement is, “God is on the side of the biggest battalions”. In other words, if you’ve got your act together, things are going to mostly go your way.

Montgomery was a general who always made sure he had his act together – he was prepared. Ready for anything, good or bad. This has a drawback in that it takes more time and thus allows the enemy to react…but it has the plus in that even if the damned thing doesn’t work, you’re so well prepared you can do something else (and so Montgomery’s failed Operation Goodwood on July 20th, 1944 made his Operation Cobra just five days later – which was where he always thought he’d end up beating the Germans in Normandy – as near-certain a thing as war can get). Patton does get the credit for the breakout after Operation Cobra. Hard charging his way across France…and this eclipses the fact that Patton was simply following Montgomery’s plan. And even there he sent major units west into Brittany when the only place he needed to go was east. And at the end of it Patton got hung up around Nancy when he was supposed to still be moving east up to the Rhine.

On balance after thinking it over, Montgomery was the better general. If I had to set up an army to fight an enemy I would want Patton…but only as a subordinate to Monty.

And you can do this endlessly – not looking for new information, just thinking about what you already know. And I do believe this will become increasingly important for us – for our side – over the next few years. Most of what is going on is trapped in a framework developed in the decades after WWII and now congealed into dogma. We’re not supposed to go outside the accepted Narrative. Outside the Party Line, that is. But we have to. As long as we remain trapped in the Narrative, we can’t win because that Narrative is designed to support the Ruling Class’ claim to legitimacy. My example here was to pick something politically non-controversial as an example (though I’m sure WWII buffs would have a fun and furious argument about it). But everything we know needs to be reconsidered. Was it really like that? In my view, most of what happened was very different from the Narrative.

Pull that lose thread and see what unravels.

Open Thread

Mark Noonan103 Comments

Tucker’s interview with Trump has been up (as this point) a bit more than an hour and it has more than 81 million views. This is going to far outpace whatever audience the Fox GOP debate will get. I didn’t watch the debate as I tend not to watch such things this early on, especially with that many people on stage. It is a bit silly. But I did watch the Trump interview with my Mrs – he’s still engaging and fun to watch. Clearly a little older but he seems in good shape. The usual run of Trump thinking out loud…but also, as per usual, did nail point after point. The Mrs was entertained – and she’s never particularly warmed up to Trump.

Trump is still a major political factor. To try to dismiss him is folly.

Now: we’ll see what happens when votes start being cast.

Do any of you remember the Eddy Grant song Electric Avenue? Lately a line in it has been rolling around in my head:

Who is to blame in what country?
Never can get to the one

Does seem like that, doesn’t it? Because we were all good, little GOPers back in 2001 – and patriots, always – we kinda let it slide that nobody in official circles went to jail over the attack. It was massive fail in intelligence, law enforcement and military…nobody paid a price (except for the 3,000 who died, of course). I think that’s when things really started to fall apart…when our Ruling Class found out that no matter how bad the failure, if they just scripted it right, they could breeze right past it…and maybe even get a commendation and promotion.

You know the song Putting on the Ritz where the line goes, “trying hard to look like Gary Cooper”? I never really got that because, for me, Gary Cooper was an older cowboy actor. But here’s a picture of him from a 1926 silent film. I get it, now.

The limit is 13. I repeat, the limit is 13!

Open Thread

Mark Noonan40 Comments

Rumors have been swirling that they are getting ready to impose COVID lockdowns again for 2024. I discounted them but now I’m not so sure – Lionsgate has reinstated mask mandates in their LA office and a few other bits of info in my own life tell me that something is up: that there might be a push to resume COVID panic. The main reason I can figure for this is to allow free flowing fraud for 2024 – and the bad news for us is that most battleground States have Democrat governors who will certainly want to impose the mandates when ordered to. Still not a done deal: outside of a small portion of idiots, nobody wants mask mandates and other COVID lockdowns in place. Popular resistance might prevent it.

The other possibility for bringing them back is that we are teetering on the edge of a major economic downturn and getting COVID restrictions back in place will be a convenient thing to blame…rather than all the selling out to China and paying for a proxy war in Ukraine that we’re losing. Main thing: put nothing past these people. As I’ve said before – once you get a person going along with abortion to birth, there is no morality left. They are into objective evil.

They seem to be slow walking Maui information, don’t they? Rumor is that hundreds are still missing – and must be presumed dead by now. Including large numbers of children. Why not let it out right way? Because they need it to be old news…dribbled out, perhaps with a Friday newsdump. To have Democrat policy cause such a shocking disaster isn’t something they want in the public eye. They also needed a chance to get Pudding Brain’s meds right for a visit. They did the best they could but of course that senile idiot tried to make the tragedy about himself; trying to talk up a minor house fire he had once into something comparable. But make no mistake about it, that fire was caused and aggravated by Democrat policy at the local, State and federal level. It should never have happened – and if by some chance it started, wise policy before and during would have made it a minor event. This is blood on Democrat hands.

We on our side really need to hit on this; every Blue city murder, every death along the border, every drug overdose…all of it comes to us via Democrat policy. They are piling up corpses in great, big bloody batches and we can’t afford to be nice about it: paint their doors with the blood of the victims. No more letting Democrats get away with a claim of being compassionate…they are as cruel and uncaring as the worst savages of history.

The end of Buckley-ite Conservatism? National Review is ending its fortnightly format and going monthly. Naturally they are dressing it up as new and improved…but the bottom line is that it shows a declining appetite for what NR sells. And just what does it sell? Conservatism which Liberals find tolerable.

No disrespect to the late Bill Buckley here. He was a man of brilliance who did many things to advance Conservative thought. In the heyday of Liberal dominance – the 20 years after the end of WWII – Buckley’s magazine was one of the few things keeping the flame of Conservatism alive. But in the end Buckley’s project failed. And it failed because it presumed Liberalism to be a valid worldview. That is, that Liberalism had a genuine intellectual and philosophical underpinning. It didn’t. It doesn’t. It never could have. Liberalism, from its first emergence in the middle 18th century always had the fatal flaw: the absurd belief that if we could just get the system right, we’d get the desired morality. Buckley’s brand of Conservatism did see through that, but not all the way. There was still some underlying assumption that Liberalism is tolerable, when just a bit of thought lets you know that it will always devolve into some sort of totalitarian barbarism. Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Nazism all grew out of Liberalism…and the increasing favor tyranny finds on the Left today is just yet another manifestation of Liberalism’s devolution to tyranny.

The breaking point – the thing which pointed to ultimate failure – was the casting out of the Birchers. I, too, once believed that it was a good and necessary thing. Can’t have kooks! Well, true; but we also can’t let ourselves be suckers. And casting out the Birchers made us suckers. Whatever screwball ideas they may have had, the bottom line is that they were defending what Conservatism is supposed to defend; faith, family and property. Because they were abandoned, the Right essentially abandoned the defense of faith, family and property. If you think back on it all, every time there was a crucial fight on those issues, the Conservative movement caved into the Left. It wasn’t Conservatism which began the pro-Life movement. It wasn’t Conservatism which saved the Second Amendment. There weren’t rich donors behind them; while Conservatism would say kind things about them, they never got into the fight. If Conservatism wanted to Conserve anything then it’s jobs was to guide and channel the Birch-impulse…away from the genuine screwballs. But to do that would be to get down in the dirt and fight it out to the destruction of Left or Right. Conservatism never wanted to do that. Might upset the liberal friends, you know?

And so it drifted until with betrayal piled on top of betrayal, the common folk turned to an outsider to get what they want – a defense of faith, family and property. We’ve yet to see how this comes out – but what Buckley did is gone, never to return.

Open Thread

Mark Noonan82 Comments

Word is that Pudding Brain has a fake e mail address. Oddly, it is a .gov address…which means he was helped in getting it by employees of the government. Like spending half his time in Delaware, this is a means whereby he avoids FOIA requests…if it doesn’t happen in the White House or in Biden’s official communications, then it doesn’t show up in oversight. To be sure, some of this is to make sure Biden is just out of the public eye – he can barely do an hour of work a day – but most of it is just to hide what is going on. From you. As Joe said, he doesn’t work for us.

Lot of argument about whether or not Trump should drop the 2020 vote issue. Maybe he should: but I’d like to point out that the GOP’s best chance of an easy move-on from Trump was for it to loudly proclaim 2020 as filled with questions and pledging to vindicate Trump’s assertion. Trump is mad – he had the White House stolen from him. It doesn’t matter if you believe that; he does. And the anger is doubled by all the GOPers he helped out dropping dime on him. This, I think, is the reason he’s running: he wants vindication.

Seems an IRS agent killed another IRS agent in a shoot out – which leaves us with the question: why are IRS agents armed?

Ninth Circuit has ruled that Idaho’s ban on biological males competing in women’s sports is unconstitutional…on what possible grounds I can’t imagine. I’m sure they dressed it up under equal protection but for heaven’s sake this issue has only existed even in theory since the 1970’s and we have no legal consensus on how all this works. Just because someone says it is so doesn’t make it so – this will go to the Supreme Court where I view it’s future as murky. There could be 2 sorta-Right Justices who want to make a name for themselves on the left on this issue as Kennedy did on SSM. The real problem here is the Courts refusing to hold themselves bound by the law – whatever is in the Constitution, this issue isn’t covered by it, plus or minus. It is therefore a matter for the States or the people to decide.

We do have in the Constitution the power to regular how federal courts operate – the right to appeal to the federal judiciary is not absolute…and as the Courts are selective in what cases they take, we can be selective in what cases they can hear. I’d hold that for a federal court to even hear a case they’d have to quote chapter and verse where the case is covered under the Constitution before they even start. I’d also work on a bit of State nullification: that is, a State going ahead and enforcing the law even if a federal court strikes it down on the grounds that the federal courts have no power over the issue. Depending on who is in the White House this could get interesting…but to me it is a fight worth having. That is: making it clear that there are issues the federal government simply has zero authority over. And lets see a President try to arrest the government of a State for not obeying a court order. Sometimes to get change you have to provoke a crisis.

Main thing: there isn’t supposed to be a final word under our system of government: it was certainly never meant to be 9 judges making the final call.

Don’t Get Mad: Get Even

Mark Noonan30 Comments

My fury has subsided. Let me tell you, yesterday evening was the maddest I have been in a long time. Perhaps ever. I don’t get mad, you see? I mean, seriously, over the course of my life if I really worked at it and decided to carry a grudge I have been able to stay angry for 3, 4 minutes at a stretch. I’m just like that. I can explode in momentary rage – but even that is very rare these days – but I can’t stay mad. There’s always a way around it. We can work it out. But last night I was in a towering rage for a long time. When the news of the Georgia indictment I read the particulars and was confronted immediately by some of the most miserable, cowardly, spiteful comments I’ve ever seen. They set me afire and I let people know just how I felt.

From the Left?

You kidding? Didn’t even bother with those idiots. I’m talking about comments from the Right. Do you want to know where we are? 100% of the Left is cheering the indictments. Meanwhile, at least 50% of the Right ranges from cheering to pseudo-intellectual posing about it. “The charges are serious and we must read the indictment”…the indictment lists Tweets as proof of a criminal conspiracy. Trump is charged with being Trump – the other defendants are charged with being Trump in the Second Degree. This is why we lose. We simply don’t understand where we are.

Think about it: why Georgia? Because the GOP governor hates Trump so much he sat on his hands while ballot dumps after poll closing handed the State to Biden. Because it is a State matter and so Trump can’t get a federal pardon. Because even if pressure is placed on Kemp to issue a pardon, he can’t – Georgia doesn’t allow Executive clemency. It is the perfect place for the Democrats to bring such charges. And it doesn’t matter how bogus it is – the jury pool where he’ll be tried is overwhelmingly Democrats and they’ll know their job is to convict no matter what. The last defense of human liberty is gone – because after half a century of de-educating the population, most people don’t even know what a jury is for. Sure it’ll be tossed on appeal, in some years. We simply don’t have the guts or the skill to do what the Democrats have done here. And even if we did, a GOP jury would still believe it must weigh the facts in rendering a judgement – we don’t have a jurisdiction where we can be certain of getting a guilty verdict.

So, where does that leave us? In a very tough spot.

A cogent case can be made for dumping Trump: that he’s just too large a burden for us to carry. I can see that point – but only if the eventual GOP nominee pledges to pardon Trump and open criminal investigations into every prosecutor – State and federal – who has investigated Trump. The charge? Civil rights violations. And to turn it about – hit them with RICO. It will not be hard to prove under that law (which should be repealed but that’s for another time) that all of these people conspired together to deny Donald Trump his civil rights; even the slightest, second-hand contacts would do the trick. You see, absent such a pledge, then all we’re doing is caving to the Democrats. What choice we make must always work out to a combat choice: a notification to the Democrats that we’re coming after them.

But whether or not we end up dumping Trump or sticking with him, we must get fully into combat mode. We must start threatening prosecution. Social and economic ruin. Expulsion from position. We have to start kicking the Left in the nuts. We must stop “being better than that”. Do we want to win, or not?

I want to win. I want them to pay. They have to pay: if they aren’t punished, then this country is doomed.

If We Want to End Drug Addiction

Mark Noonan39 Comments

Over the past few days I’ve been rewatching the Narcos television series – I’ve mentioned it before and if you haven’t seen it, worth a watch. It covers the battle against the Columbian drug cartels, starting with the infamous Pablo Escobar. It is naturally dramatized but I did check it against reality and its a fairly good depiction of what happened. But it got me thinking that we’ve been going about it all wrong from the get-go.

One of our options is to just legalize all narcotics – let US drug makers produce cocaine, heroin or what have you and let people get high to their hearts content. As the Libertarians would say, this respects personal autonomy and we’d make good revenues from the legal trade as well as making sure the drugs have quality control so people wouldn’t be ingesting actual poison. There is much to be said for this line of thinking but I have considered it and rejected it.

One of the things Libertarians get wrong is how they define “victimless crime”. The Libertarian position is that taking drugs or, say, engaging in prostitution – as long as there’s no physical coercion – is victimless and so not really a crime. As such, we should let people freely engage in these activities and only intervene if someone is being directly harmed by another. But the reason I’m not Libertarian is because I recognize that you don’t have to directly attack someone to do them harm. The millions of addicts we have in the USA cause grave harm every day even if all they’re doing is lying in a pool of their own waste – it is the fact that they are high, filthy and polluting the streets that is the harm. Harms property values. Harms public health. The disorder they represent also attracts crime – not least people looking to rob or abuse the drug addicts, themselves. While our right to believe and say whatever we want is absolute, when you get into people doing things it isn’t nearly as absolute – and if done in the public square then it must in no way impede or harm everyone else who is in or may decide to use the public square at any time. Bottom line, the follow-on effects of having drug addicts are so large that we can’t afford, as a society , to carry the burden of millions of drug addicts. They must cease to be addicts – and as they’ve mostly shown themselves incapable of self control, they must be controlled; primarily in the form of cutting off their access to drugs.

Which we have tried to do, for decades, at enormous cost and zero success. I think this is because we went about it the wrong way.

Our battle has been against the “drug lords”. The cartel bosses; the big guys who are running the operations and making billions per year off it. In theory, going after them makes sense. But only if you don’t really think about it. You see, the problem isn’t people making money off drugs; the problem is the drugs, themselves. It is the drugs we want to get rid of. But we’ve gone after the money made off drugs, instead. But there is a problem with that: Money defends itself.

When you target the latest iteration of Pablo Escobar you’ll find that just like Escobar, the primary thing he has is money. Lots and lots of money. Buckets of money. So much money he doesn’t really know what to do with it all. Escobar had so much money he bought hippos – the descendants of which still live in Columbian rivers and lakes giving everyone who wants to look a hands-on class on species propagation. Escobar was able to operate as long as he did primarily because of bribes. Sure, he also used ruthless violence at need, but the main thing was the money. Anyone who could threaten his operation was first approached with a bribe offer – the killing thing only coming in if the bribes failed. And the killing was quite horrific for two purposes; to punish the particular guy who wouldn’t play ball, of course, but mostly to show everyone that if you didn’t take the bribe (or didn’t stay bought) then the consequences would be the horrible and painful death of (usually) you and your whole family. And Escobar’s successors throughout the entire narcotics trade have taken his lessons to heart – bribes combined with quite spectacular violence.

To get after such people – that is people who have no sense of decency – requires you to get down in the gutter with them. It is a dirty, nasty business staffed by the cruel and the corrupt. And as you work your plans to get the drug lords, you are surrounded by the offers of bribes and the threats of horrific death. To operate among such people you have to take on their coloration. Do you see where this leads? You become your enemy. First in ruthless cruelty against them and finally in going along with them. You take the bribe.

Think how easy that is. Don’t condemn anyone too harshly who took the money. Especially after they’ve been at it for a few years and they see for all their efforts – and maybe a few big targets taken down – the drugs continue to flow. The bribes continue to be paid. The violence associated with it on the lower levels continues unabated. So, maybe that fifth or sixth time the bribe is offered, you take it. The Narcos aren’t stupid; they’ll let you seize a small shipment every now an again. Let you arrest a few minor players (especially if those players have become an irritation). Life will go on; but now you’re not risking anything and that ten grand a month in an offshore account just grows and grows.

And, so, my point: taking down the drug lords is a pointless exercise. Even success is useless. Escobar got his chips cashed in back in 1993 and the drug trade never skipped a beat. Because the bribes continued to flow. The violence, too. And we’ve been at this so long that I’m very confident by this point that huge numbers of our people are on the take. The sheer volume of contraband crossing could not occur without active cooperation in official circles in the USA. And the propaganda machine which works non-stop to keep border control a joke is almost certainly Cartel funded at least to some major degree. We’re really getting the worst of it here; we use to have a drug problem, now we’ve got a drug and corruption problem.

Stopping the problem – drug addiction turned into massive corruption – has always been about keeping drugs out of the hands of addicts. It has been more logistic than anything else. Somewhere along the line, the logistic chain has to be broken. Can’t stop the production of the drugs – that is in South America. Can’t stop the shipment of drugs – most of that is outside the USA and while a complete sealing of our borders would stop it, that isn’t practical given the amount of trade we conduct day in and day out. So, the only place we can break the chain is internal distribution. that is, going after the small time hoods who transport and sell relatively small quantities of the drugs. The mules and the pushers: they have to go.

And by “go” I do mean in a quite literal sense. Gone. No longer around. Dead. Quickly and in large numbers. And at first glance what I’m suggesting might seem cruel. They’re just small fry, right? Not the big, bad drug lords. Sure. But it is the mules and pushers who actually hand out sufficient illegal drugs to cause 100,000 overdose deaths per year in the USA. In Latin and South America the number of people murdered by the drug trade is probably past a million by now. What I’m saying is that a few hundred – tops – dead mules and pushers and the supply of drugs on the streets dries up; and a vastly higher number of people don’t die next year.

It would work because the reason they’re in the business is that it is low risk/high reward. Drive that truck from San Diego to Chicaco. Easy. Sell those drugs in Chicago. Also easy. Probably won’t get caught. If you do, its a bit of jail time but because you’re smart, not too much; you didn’t keep sufficient drugs on your person to make your arrest a major rap. So, what I’m saying is that if we catch a guy selling an ounce of coke: kill him. You seriously would only have to do it a hundred times or so before people got out of the business.

The retail dealer can’t hide. He’s not like a drug lord in his guarded palace with an army of gunslingers and lawyers. He’s just a guy on a street corner (as it were) selling small amounts of narcotics. You can see it; seriously just drive into the more run down areas of any major city and no matter how innocent you are, in a short time you will figure out who the dealers are. He’s also in routine contact with drug addicts – people not well skilled in avoiding surveillance. We could, on any given day, arrest most of the drug dealers in any given city. And if we then placed them on trial the next day and shot them the day after that…week at the outside, nobody wants to move product on the streets any more.

Because that is the thing; it has to be death and it has to be swift. If it isn’t death and if it isn’t swift, just wasting your time. What you’re trying to do is instruct not very bright people. People who have a dim ability to see the future and very limited concern about other people. The only thing that can get their attention is violence. If you do want an alternative to execution you can try flogging. Fifty lashes with a bullwhip. But who shall apply the strokes? And that might not work; might become a macho game with these idiots to see who can put up with it the best. But death is death; these people very much want to stay alive. You put the word out that if we catch you with an ounce of coke then 48 hours later you’re dead, they’ll get the message.

All of this is only if you want to end the scourge of drugs. You don’t have to. It can turn your stomach and you can turn away. But if you want to end it – strictly speaking, make it such a small thing that it has no effect on overall society – then this is what you’ll have to do. They are killing 100,000 a year via OD. More via murder and mayhem. Are your sensitive feelings more important than the 250 or so who will die tomorrow because you didn’t shoot ten drug dealers today?

One day we will again be a serious society – a real country which identifies a problem and applies the appropriate solution even if its a hard thing to do. When that day comes, my ideas here – to one extent or another – will be applied. It is just a question of how long it takes for us to wake up.

Open Thread

Mark Noonan49 Comments

Proterra just filed for bankruptcy.

They’re an Electric Vehicle company much-touted (and subsidized) but Team Pudding Brain.

Energy Secretary Granholm cashed out $1.6 million in Proterra stock just before it went belly up.

Now, you can be stupid and say this was all just a coincidence…or you can see the obvious: a grift company set up to drain money from the Treasury tipped off the Energy Secretary – who must have been in on the scam – so she can get her pile of money, ultimately courtesy of the taxpayers.

They’re not even really hiding that they are corrupt. They keep the details secret, but the fact that they are corrupt is obvious and they are laughing at us. With the revelation that foreign oligarchs and gangsters have funneled $20 million into various Biden Family shell companies, the MSM position (so far) is that there is no proof that any of this money was directly given to Joe Biden. They know that’s a stupid thing to say. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen; they are even confident that if a GOPer wins the White House nothing will happen – likely because too many senior GOPers are hip deep in the overall Ruling Class corruption. Like this:

Senator Tim Scott – who is not a bad guy – had his campaign books looked into and it seems that huge amounts of money are being spent on brand new companies. We’re talking millions of dollars going from Scott’s campaign chest (which is huge) into these companies for…well, not for a whole heck of a lot. And make no mistake about it, what Scott is doing here is legal. But it is almost certainly what Matt and I found in Caucus of Corruption back in 2006: politicians essentially paying themselves out of campaign donations. You know: hire your wife as a consultant for half a million dollars. With this being relatively clean – legal and not actually hidden – can you imagine what we’d find if we really dug into the bowels of government? As of a minute ago, in FY 2023 (which started October 1st, 2022) Uncle Sam has spent $4,805,159,571,246.00 – $455 million more than they had spent by this time last year! Who the heck is keeping track of all that?

Suppose you had just a billion dollars and someone was stealing ten thousand dollars a day from you…you have a billion. It’ll be ages before you really notice it. And that is just you with your own billion dollars. Now imagine nearly five trillion dollars being shoveled out and millions of people coming and going…how hard would it be to steal a million dollars every day? That would only be 365 million by the end of the year. That is 0.007% of the money. that is like someone slightly shaving some metal of a penny. How would you notice? What I’m saying: rely on it, huge amounts of money are being stolen. probably at least a trillion every year of late. Often legally: but only as long as the people don’t find out about it and so demand reforms. Protecting that pile of stolen money is crucial to those stealing it: there is literally nothing they won’t do to keep you from finding out about it and stopping it.

Like, for instance, indicting Trump for saying things…which ultimately stems from Trump wanting to look into a big part of the corruption, what was going on in Ukraine.

RDS booted a Soros-backed, Commie State Attorney. And this is sure to warm Amazona’s heart – not just on a Commie getting the boot, by why she got it: DeSantis determined she was violating her oath of office by allowing violent felons to skate. This is wonderful stuff; and definitely the way to go. We can no longer tolerate people getting into official positions to undermine what those positions are for.

As we pretty much already knew, the FBI was targeting Catholics as domestic terrorists. Like the Traditional Latin Mass? Dude: the FBI wants to know all about it. Hey, I get it – the Trad Catholics can be a bit tiresome (I actually lean a bit left theologically; that whole Divine Mercy thing has sunk deep into me), but they aren’t terrorists. Unlike, you know, Antifa/BLM who are…and are also crooks and con artists, into the bargain. The sort of people the FBI might want to look into before they tackle the lady on her way to Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. And I would like to remind one and all that while we Catholics are pretty easy going…we can become Cristeros at need.

The World Bank is cutting off funding to Uganda because of a recently passed law restricting homosexuality. Now, to be sure, I don’t think Uganda should have passed this law. I don’t think the government should be in the business of policing the personal relationships of the citizens. But here’s the thing: I’m not Ugandan. Not my country. The people of Uganda are perfectly capable of exercising their own judgement about what is best for themselves and while I can offer my opinion on it, I in no way have the right to try to force a people to live as I think best. The purpose of The World Bank is to provide funding to poor nations so they can rise out of poverty. Uganda has a Per Capita Income of about a grand a year. That’s pretty poor, if you ask me. They could probably use some economic development…but what they don’t need is rich, white foreigners telling them how to live. The old Imperialism sought to bring Christian truth and material advancement…the new Imperialism seeks to make the world like San Francisco.

Mercy: It Isn’t What You Think it Is

Mark Noonan33 Comments

Dan McLaughlin – a man of the Right but whom I often disagree with – posted a Tweet the other day saying we should have hung Jefferson Davis after the Civil War; this has sparked a bit of a debate with most people disagreeing with McLaughlin. I was one who supported the assertion. Not only Davis, but Lee; in fact, all elected officials of the Confederacy; all cabinet officials; all general and flag officers; all governors of seceded States; all elected officials of seceded States – all should have variously been hung or if mitigating circumstances were found, imprisoned for long terms, most for life. Additionally, all members of the Confederate States armed forces should have been permanently disenfranchised if no other punishment was warranted for actions during the war.

Harsh, huh?

But not really. For the longest time I went along with the agree-upon post-Civil War Narrative that Grant’s “let ’em up easy” terms were best as it was asserted it quickly restored national unity and ensured against a repeat. But upon long reflection, I have concluded that this Narrative is as much drivel as the former Confederate’s Lost Cause Narrative.

First off, there wasn’t going to be a repeat. The war was over. The South was utterly crushed. They had no means with which to wage war. The huge armies that the South managed to field in 1863 were gone and couldn’t be remade. It was more than a generation before the physical damage was repaired. The concept that the South – having just been wiped out – would resort to arms if we weren’t nice to the Confederates is just nonsense on stilts.

Secondly, the former Confederates weren’t in the least moved by mercy. Their sole purpose once we decided to let them go was to restore as far as possible the supremacy of the Planter Class which had engineered secession and lost the Civil War at massive cost to those Southerners who had no stake in the Planter Class. The Klan was formed six months after the last battle; and it’s purpose was to beat down any person, black or white, who might strive for a new direction in the South. Anyone who wanted blacks voting, getting educated, owning property was targeted. Yes, most of the direct violence was against black people…but plenty of white people felt the fury as well; to intimidate them into looking the other way when the Klan went out to murder. The only thing which prevented the former Confederates from reimposing slavery was the 13th Amendment – and with the Klan they imposed a system which was all but slavery.

Davis, Lee and a few other top people hanging from a gallows and you don’t get this. Disenfranchised Confederate soldiers means black Southerners united with those whites who resisted the Confederacy (and there were a lot of them) would control the future of the South. There would have been a real Reconstruction; a real re-integration of the South into the national political system…not this bastard, hybrid system we had from 1865 to 1965 where in parts of the country American citizens were routinely denied basic rights because of their skin color. There was more shame in Jim Crow than slavery, when you really think about it – we inherited slavery; we made Jim Crow…or if not made it, tolerated it. Looked the other way; pretended it wasn’t happening or wasn’t a problem. It was a poison injected into our society after the most glorious moment in our history – the end of slavery. And think of all the people who died or were brutalized because of Jim Crow. Set that against twenty or thirty people hung…people who had, no matter how you sliced it, levied war against the United States, and so were traitors by the strict definition of the Constitution.

Mercy, you see, isn’t softness. It isn’t a refusal to acknowledge what happened and demand an accounting – it is a decision to remit full punishment for transgression. In other words, you do not exact your pound of flesh. But this doesn’t mean you don’t take an ounce or two. After the Hungarian rebellion against Austrian rule in 1848, one of Bismarck’s friends bemoaned the repression the Austrians were dealing out to the defeated Hungarians. Bismarck asked in reply words to the effect of, “what about all the people who died in the rebellion? Doesn’t their blood cry out for justice?”. What Bismarck was hitting upon is that anyone who resorts to arms bears responsibility. To be certain – and Bismarck would agree – at times you can be in a position where resort to arms is the only way out. But even if you are fully justified in fighting, people are going to die…and it will be the most innocent who suffer the most because you decided to fight. The Hungarians felt they had to fight (I’ve thought about it and I don’t think they were justified; there were vitally necessary reforms but there was no reason to fight; given the nature of the world at the time, the Austrians weren’t being oppressive brutes and there was a great deal of willingness to reform in the government); fine – fight. But they lost. And now the instrument of government must exact a reckoning on those who resorted to arms. Schwarzenberg, the Austrian Prime Minister (in effect) was alleged to have said, “certainly, there must be mercy. But first, some hanging.”. You can’t just start a war, lose it, and expect everyone to act as if nothing had happened. So there was some punishment – and some mercy. In the long stream of history, one of the Hungarians condemned to die for rebellion was eventually pardoned and rose to be Prime Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; but there still had to be the hanging.

We need to get back to an understanding that a price has to be paid. There is nothing free. And the more disruptive the action, the higher the price. We have turned mercy into mere mushiness; a sentimental unwillingness to make sure that those who dare greatly also understand that failure has its very high cost. Our latest iteration of this is the BLM/Antifa riots and the spate of store lootings. Everyone wants these things to stop – but I might well be the only person in the United States who understands that if you want to be merciful, then some people will have to pay, and perhaps with their lives for the most egregious. And keep in mind that I oppose the death penalty! On the whole, don’t use it…but if we identify, say, twenty people who organized the BLM/Antifa riots which led to so many devastated lives…then four or five of the worst offenders being hung is merciful…because the survivors would never risk a repeat of it, and so we won’t have thousands of people with ruined lives because someone wanted to make a violent political point.

Human life – human civilization – is a precarious balance; everything has its mirror and it is in striking the balance between the two extremes that we find peace, freedom and safety. Tolerance balanced with intolerance. Order balanced with liberty. Justice balanced with mercy. But balanced. No element being allowed to run away with itself; everything kept in check by its opposite. We have lost that balance and so everything gets ever more insane. It is time to revive it.

Conservatives: Stop Helping the Left

Mark Noonan44 Comments

Never retract. Never explain. Get the job down and let them howl.

That is a quote attributed to 19th century Oxford professor Benjamin Jowett – quite a famous educator in his time. I bring it up because we on our side – the Right side of the political spectrum – need to lay that quote to heart. Why?

Well, the other day Kari Lake made a statement about how the House should annul the 2020 election and install Trump into the White House. I didn’t bother looking deeply into it because such a thing can’t be done and I’ve no time to waste on such things. But lots of people did look into it – naturally ridiculing Lake over it and making a huge fuss out of a few words said by a private citizen on TV. The thing is that huge numbers of people were attacking her from the right.

What possible use is that? What advantage can we possibly gain by joining the Left in attacking one of our own?

Don’t bother telling me that the statement was bad. Of course it was. But where was it handed down from on high that if someone says something ridiculous that everyone has to comment on it? Condemn it? Further: when was the rule established that we have to make sure we condemn any of our own who say or do something stupid? Do the Democrats ever attack their own? Stacy Abrams and her boosters went on for years saying she had won the Georgia gubernatorial race even though it was patently obvious that she hadn’t – and to contrast with Lake, at least in the case of Arizona there remain some very serious questions about whether or not all the GOP ballots were counted and/or whether or not some Democrat ballots were slipped in after the election was over. Abrams lost clearly – and if there was any cheating, it would have been the per-usual cheating Democrats do. So, if anything, Abrams lost by a larger margin than official totals. But, that didn’t stop her, nor her people: claiming for ages that it was fixed and she was the legitimate governor of Georgia. Did you ever hear a single Democrat get out there and ridicule her? Condemn her? Even take mild exception to her position?

No. Not a peep. And to this day Abrams is a highly regarded leader in the Democrat party. Why do we on the Right always participate in Leftist attacks on our own? We do not need to. If one of our commits a crime, you can rely on it that the Establishment will prosecute (and as we see with Trump, even if there isn’t a crime). If one of ours does something immoral, that’s gonna lead the news. So, if one of ours is actually bad, they’re gone. But if one of ours merely says or does something dumb: let them weather the storm. Make a judgement if you want to stand up for them depending on the nature of the mistake…but for goodness sake, don’t help the Democrats destroy them! You don’t have to jump in there. Almost certainly, nobody asked you. And anyone who does ask you is a Democrat operative trying to get GOPers on record condemning a fellow GOPer…simply to make it easier to destroy that GOPer.

If a GOPer/Conservative angers you, here’s an idea: move on. Find a Democrat to attack. Don’t attack the GOPer. That GOPer will be attacked, at length, for actions real and imagined by the regime MSM. Your help is not needed! And nobody cares that you manged to preen yourself on our superior morality by condemning someone on our side.

Unless and until we get to the Democrat level of loyalty to friends and ruthlessness to enemies, we’re simply not going to win.