The Abortion Lie Crumbles

So, the Supreme Court refused to block the implementation of Texas’ mild restriction on abortion and the Left is having a meltdown over it. It really is their sacrament – and, truth be told, they have to treat it as one. If there is a lie which underpins all other lies on the Left, it is “abortion on demand”. Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not abortion should be legal and under what circumstances, but “abortion on demand” (and the US is only one of about six nations which has it) is an absurdity on its face. To say that no other consideration should enter into the question of aborting a child other than the mother’s desire is ridiculous.

For one thing, there is a father involved – and abortion on demand cuts him out while leaving him 100% on the hook if the woman decides not to have an abortion. This is something which bothered me even in the days of my pro-choice youth: why should a guy be on the hook if the girl, on her own, can decide to kill the child? I always looked at it in that sense and it was what eventually led me to the pro-life position: a question of simple fairness. If abortion is legal – if it is a right – then it is a human right and the male can decide to abort as well as the female. But, none of that, right? Woman aborts and she’s a hero…guy decides he doesn’t want to have a child and he’s a dead beat dad.

But let’s leave that aside and get to the crux of the matter. The reason abortion must be unrestricted is because if it isn’t then an element of personal responsibility is injected. If under some circumstances the child cannot be disposed of at whim then the entire picture changes and people have to start thinking again.

Now, the Left would tell you that until they graciously came along and liberated women with divorce, birth control and abortion, it was a nightmare time of women being mere breeders for arrogant and cruel men. That women had no rights and could never refuse a man sexual activity. This is all made up drivel, of course. And it was made up very early on by the first crusaders for divorce and birth control and they made the stories up because they needed a hook to get the Ruling Class to go along with it…and there is nothing which will please a Ruling Class more than someone telling them that the peasants are stupid and need to be protected and guided by the Ruling Class.

The story put out was that the poor population was out of control and breeding too much and in order to fix this, they needed to be instructed about sex and given birth control otherwise they would just breed, breed, breed their way to disaster. They seriously held to the view that poor people didn’t know where babies come from. That they couldn’t put two and two together after a while and figure out that shortly after a bit of sweaty action, the woman would often come up pregnant. Like poor people were sitting in their slum with 14 kids roaming around and dad and mom just flabbergasted about how she got pregnant for the 15th time.

This is seriously the underlying intellectual level we’re talking here. This sort of intellect is what supports abortion on demand.

But it is what they held and what they hold today – and it is a lie. It is a lie that human beings are mere animals who have no way to control their sexual appetite and no means of thinking about whom to have sex with and when. And that is what they are afraid of losing, at bottom. They desperately cling to abortion on demand because if it goes, then a whole series of lies goes with it. There isn’t much difference, after all, in telling a woman to just have an abortion and telling a person that they can’t get ahead because they are the victims of racism or what have you. No abortion and no CRT (as it were) and all of a sudden whether or not you’ll have kids and a successful life is entirely up to you. And if people start rising to the challenge of personal responsibility and finding that they can defer children without abortion and succeed in life in spite of the odd jerk, then the entire Leftist project is over.

The Application of Mercy

In Humbolt Park, Chicago, last night a couple was dragged from their car and shot. The man is dead and the woman is injured. It is entirely irrelevant why this particular event happened. The punishment of the criminals, if it happens, will also be entirely pointless because they won’t be punished properly.

I got into a good natured argument yesterday and today on Twitter about the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. I took the position that the main American mistake – our mistake of all mistakes – was that we allowed the Confederate leadership to live after the war. Not only allowed them to live, but allowed them to prosper and resume their power in the South. This is why we got Jim Crow. It wasn’t imposed by poor white farmers, but by the Ruling Class. The Ex-Confederates that we let off formed the KKK and used the most horrific violence imaginable against black Southerners as well as any white Southerners who wanted to take a stab at living in peace and justice with the freed slaves. And make no mistake about it, there were plenty of white Southerners who were willing to live in peace – I’m not saying they were ready, in 1865, to intermarry (though some did, in spite of huge pressure against it), but they were willing to live and let live. That was all very deliberately and maliciously suppressed by the Klan, under the control of people who had been Confederate generals, governors and other officials.

We have had the sense that Grant’s policy of letting them up easy was the correct way to go and in a certain sense, this can’t be argued against. As the historian Will Durant pointed out, the greatest military captains of history have shown that clemency is a mighty engine of war. But when we think about some of those past captains, we see it wasn’t exactly like it was after our Civil War.

Caesar was famously magnanimous with the defeated Gauls. He treated the defeated so well that during the ensuing Roman Civil War the Gauls didn’t rise in revolt when they could have easily thrown off Roman rule. Its not like the Gauls didn’t have people who could fight. They did: Caesar had let quite a lot of them off to return to their homes. But they didn’t rise. Why not? Probably had something to do with Caesar having their main leader strangled in Rome after his defeat. In other words, Caesar was merciful, but he wasn’t stupid enough to leave a strong, intelligent and clearly brave enemy alive.

Another example of this sort of thing was what the Austrians under Prince Schwarzenberg did to the Hungarians after their revolt was crushed in the 1840’s. Once the Hungarians were down, the operatives of the Austrian Monarchy went to work hunting down the leaders of the Hungarian revolt and hanging them in large numbers. The Prince was urged to mercy by a friend who, like many in Austria and around the world, was horrified at the operation of vengeance. Schwarzenberg said that he quite agreed that mercy was necessary – but, first, they had to have some hangings. Did this make him a hypocrite? Not at all. Cruel? Nope. He was merely being wise and ultimately merciful. Another observer of the same events, the still young Bismarck still more than a decade away from fame, responded to a friend complaining about the repression in Hungary by asking why no tears were shed for all the people who had been made widows and orphans by the rebels? People were acting as if the rebels must certainly have been in the right and that their actions were immaculate. This, to Bismarck (and to any fair observer) was drivel. The Hungarians had their complaints about the Austrian Monarchy, but so did everyone – but the Hungarians had no particular justification for going into revolt…especially as for each Austrian act of repression against Hungarians, there had been Hungarian acts of repression against non-Magyars in Hungary. Very rare will there be the person who is totally in the right!

Now, how did this work out? Well, once the hangman’s noose was put away (and it was, fairly quickly), order and justice were restored and some years after it was all over, Gyula Andrássy – a Hungarian rebel who had been condemned to death in absentia and actually hung in effigy – was appointed Prime Minister of Hungary and Foreign Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Funny how things can work out? But it likely would not have worked out had the Austrians simply allowed the rebels to resume their position in the Hungarian Ruling Class as if nothing had happened. What we did in 1865 was allow the defeated enemy to resume his position. This got us a century of Jim Crow and, ultimately, played a huge role in the subordination of State governments to the Feds. Think about it – a modicum of justice in the South and there never would have been a Plessy vs Ferguson leading to a Brown vs Board of Education. No consent decrees. No gerrymandering minority-majority house districts. No “one man, one vote” destruction of the State Senates, which was a body blow to the very concept of Republican government. A few more hangings and we wouldn’t have had Jefferson Davis spinning his Lost Cause drivel while Forrest created the KKK to be a mafia-like muscle to re-impose Confederate rule in the South (and, yes, I realize that Forrest seems to have had a change of heart years later, but by then the damage was done – he’d have been far more useful to peace and justice dying at the end of a rope in 1865 than dying with lots of black friends in 1877).

Mercy must always triumph over Justice. But Justice must have her due. It can’t be otherwise. To get back to the start of this piece, the reason savages dragged two people out of a car and shot them is because we developed an entirely mistaken idea of what mercy is. We have it in our minds that Mercy means you skate. It can’t. If you do wrong, you must pay. A price is demanded for everything. Even God’s mercy had a price, after all. What will be done wrong about the people in Chicago is that they won’t be forced to the real atonement necessary. Even if they spend some time in jail, it still can’t possibly balance the books. For goodness sake, they dragged people out of their car and shot them! How is 20 years in jail going to make up for that? How will that deter the next barbarian? But before you go “death penalty” I’ll also ask: what will killing the shooters accomplish? To their fellow barbarians, they are still heroes who showed The Man. Dying from lethal injection won’t balance the books.

No, there has to be more – it isn’t enough to jail or kill: the perpetrators must be revealed for what they are: very stupid barbarians who will find out that Civilization can be one real son of a bitch when necessary. The reason our civilization used to hang, draw and quarter people wasn’t to be cruel. No, it had a very specific purpose: it was to show everyone, especially the barbarians, that Civilization wasn’t to be trifled with. That if you’ll live in peace with your neighbors, you’ll be fine: but if you won’t, then you’ll be made to curse your mother for giving you birth.

And it works, guys. The reason that we used to live in a world where even in big cities we didn’t have to lock our doors at night is because for centuries before, the most harsh punishments had been meted out to those who broke the rules. In the long run, it was a mercy to do it – because it eventually deterred people from being savages. Yes, provide mercy – and I mean in the sense of letting someone eventually off. But first, to put it bluntly, there must be a little hanging. We don’t have to do it to everyone who drags a person out of their car – just a few. The rest will get the message. And then we’ll have the crowning mercy of nobody being dragged from their cars and shot requiring us then to brutally punish the perpetrators. Because that is what you’re doing – you’re not trying to be cruel: you’re trying to get to a point where you don’t have to punish very much because there’s hardly anyone to punish. That is real Mercy.

You Bet Your Life

Saw this post on Twitter which referenced Texas HB196 – which was an act introduced by Rep. Thresa Meza to amend Texas’ “castle doctrine”. The long and short of it seems to be to restrict the ability of a property owner to use deadly force to defend said property. As you can see from the Twitter link, the explanation offered is that a person shouldn’t get a death sentence for robbery. I’ve seen this before and I find it an interesting idea.

You see, it is Stalinist jurisprudence.

Now, Stalin likely didn’t work this out on his own; for sure things in Marx and done by Lenin closely informed Stalin’s criminal code, but as Solzhenitsyn pointed out Gulag Archipelago, the criminal code of the Soviet Union both disarmed the populace and required it to give every benefit of the doubt to the criminal. The ultimate result of this was that crime was rampant in the USSR. It wasn’t reported on and, of course, it didn’t affect the very closely guarded elite, but the average Soviet citizen was plagued by crime his or her whole life. This being based on the general Marxist idea (refined by Lenin) that crime is only the result of injustice: essentially, if you have more than the criminal, then you are the thief. I can’t say the quote linked above is definitely Meza’s: I haven’t been to track down certain proof. But, it is in line with her bill about the castle doctrine…and her bill is an attempt to bring Soviet jurisprudence to the United States. She was, by the way, a teacher and a lawyer before entering office. So, she was teaching kids and carrying out legal actions with her mind certain that crime is never the fault of the criminal.

This brought to mind the George Floyd case. Once it became clear that he was a petty criminal and was resisting arrest (and also was, apparently, high as a kite) the word went out, before the MSM completely memory-holed this stuff, that whatever Floyd did before that knee got on his neck, it didn’t warrant a death sentence. And, that is true: it didn’t. But here’s the real deal: George Floyd bet his life.

And then he lost the bet.

Floyd’s wager was that he could be a petty criminal and drug addict and then, when arrested, he could resist arrest and he would get through it with no serious consequences. Given his arrest record, he won this bet many times. On May 25th, 2020, he lost the bet.

The reality is that we all bet our lives all the time. When you hop into your car, you are betting that a fatal accident won’t happen to you before you get to your destination. This is almost always a safe bet but 102 people lose that bet every day. Still, low risk bet. Higher risk bets are things like skydiving or climbing Mt Everest. Another is being a criminal. Essentially, a criminal is betting his life that he can get what he wants without paying for it and nothing bad will happen to him. As in driving a car, this is mostly a safe bet – less safe than the car, but still pretty safe. If you decide to take this bet and rob your local liquor store tomorrow, you almost certainly will not die as a result of it. But you would be betting you life, and you might lose. You might have picked the liquor store where the guy has a gun under the counter and has a keen appreciation for his property. Of course, the more bets you place, the more you can lose. Place $5 on roulette and your possible losses are $5. Place $50 in five dollar increments on ten different spots, you could lose all $50.

Floyd made the following bets with his life.

  1. Be a criminal.
  2. Be high.
  3. Resist arrest.

Any one of them can lead to disaster. Doing three bets at once simply increased the odds that disaster would strike. It did for Floyd in the form of a policeman who didn’t take his knee off Floyd’s neck in time. To be sure, Floyd making the bets doesn’t excuse everyone else involved – the officers involved are under indictment and we’ll see how those cases come out (almost certain acquittal in my view: but, we’ll see). But the bottom line is that the police didn’t place Floyd’s bets for him. Floyd did. Had he not placed the three bets – or even decided against betting one of the three wagers – he’d likely be alive today.

As for me, I have little sympathy for folly. I watched not too long ago a documentary about an expedition to Mt Everest which was pitched in sad tones about some people who died trying to climb that mountain. All the tear-jerking narrative and somber music, you know? I felt nothing for the deceased. It was foolish of them to make the attempt. There was no upside to even a successful climb. There is nothing at the top of Mt Everest that any human being will ever need. I can barely understand why Edmund Hillary did it; but after someone had done it, what the heck possible justification can one muster to risk their lives merely to stand on a particular spot of ground? You bet your life to climb up to a place which has nothing of use and where human beings can’t live without life support? That’s not adventurous or brave: that’s just stupid.

And, hey, I understand striving for the grand achievement. This is why I can say that Hillary’s achievement was something – but, even then, not much. It wasn’t even in the same league as useful risks like Yeager breaking the sound barrier or Armstrong going to the Moon. Useful things flowed from both of those acts of sublime courage. What flowed from Hillary’s effort? Well, a picture in National Geographic…and about 300 corpses of people betting their lives that they could climb to a completely useless point on the map.

Congrats. I guess.

But at least the mountain climbers get some exercise out of it and search and rescue teams are kept in top form looking for them. Betting your life on being a drug addicted petty criminal? Yeah, not so much good going on there. Floyd’s death was decreed many years before he died. He could have prevented it by the simple expedient of not being a thief or not being an addict or not resisting arrest. He chose not to. He apparently liked his life as it was – and in that, I won’t judge. Everyone is to live as they please.

And everyone is to suffer the consequences of their actions.

And that, I think, is really what is missing in us these days: we don’t want to take responsibility for ourselves. Everyone has an excuse and it’s always that other guy, who played zero role in our decisions, who is the source of the trouble. That has to stop.

No, it isn’t a balanced thing if someone breaks into a home to get a TV that he gets shot. But it was the bet made: I bet my life against a free TV. This is not a wise bet, but it is a bet many make…and some of them lose their bet.

A Time of Choosing Approaches

Ultimately, we might be faced with a choice between Franco and Lenin. This is very dangerous, these times we live in.

Me? What would I do? Well, if I had to choose…then just figure that its Spain, 1936 and I’m a Carlist.

I think a lot of people miss what Solzhenitsyn really meant when he said the 20th Century’s problem was that people had forgotten about God. It is an easy statement and most probably think they grasp it…but you have to dig really deep to understand that those who forget about God are incapable of morality. Sure, sure; we’ve all heard the stories of the good atheist. Yadda, yadda, yadda…but doesn’t matter. If you really have excised God from your life then there is nothing to hold you back except purely practical considerations. Mostly: you don’t want to go to jail. But if jail isn’t in prospect, what’s to stop you? You don’t believe in God – indeed, you’ve forgotten about Him.

When we read story after story of rich, powerful men preying upon women and youth, what do you really think that is about? For goodness sake, these are rich men: they can pony up the money and have a bevy of gorgeous women (or boys, if they swing that way) voluntarily do whatever sexual acts are desired. But, they don’t do that, do they? No: they want someone they can abuse. If you pay someone the asked price then it isn’t abuse. It is still just as immoral, but where is the power involved in that? How can you feel a special, elect person unless you can force someone to do something with no worry about consequences to yourself?

Because that is the real mark of forgetting about God: becoming a bully. When we say the phrase “brotherhood of man” we can only say that if we’re the children of God. And if we are all, indeed, children of God then we are brothers and sisters and so we really shouldn’t abuse one another. But if there isn’t any God – if we forgot about Him? – well, then; who are you to me? You are whatever I can force you to be. And there is a delicious pleasure to be had in abusing another person. Don’t doubt me on this.

In ancient America do you think the Aztec priests woke up on Monday going, “oh, geesh, its rip-hearts-out day! Dang! I just wanted to go fishing!”. Nope; it wasn’t like that because it couldn’t be like that. Aztec priests, priests of Baal, Auschwitz guards, NKVD interrogators…all have this in common: to them, it was cool what they were doing. They enjoyed it. And don’t think they didn’t know it was wrong: that is something that can’t be excised from the human heart no matter how much a person forgets about God. How do we know this is true? Because the one thing an Aztec priest and NKVD interrogator would never do is volunteer to be subjected to what they did. You think the guy who ripped out a heart really thought that God was pleased? Don’t be quite so silly: if he really believed that, he’d have undergone it. If you don’t want it to happen to you then you know that you shouldn’t do it. But, still, they did it. Because there is an exquisite pleasure in being cruel. There is a rush in doing evil which the victim is forbidden to stop. That someone is at your mercy is a glorious feeling – provided, of course, that you take that first step in forgetting about God.

The other part of it is the not everyone gets to do it. That’s the flip side of abuse: exclusivity. Fruits that are forbidden to all but the Elect. If you’re in the club, you have the privilege. If you want the most insane ego trip then you want to be abusing in a manner that is denied to most. Joe down the street would long ago have been locked up for life if he did 10% of what some of these rich men do. And that’s the beauty of it for them. To be able to let loose their own perversions upon helpless victims while most can’t is the mark of being at the top of the heap. Of being a special, advanced person who can’t be questioned by the lower orders.

But it isn’t just super rich who have forgotten about God. Nope: plenty of people far down the socio-economic scale, aping the super rich, have forgotten as well. But they do lack the means and the protection to really go to town. So, they do what they can – like, you know, burn down a business during a riot one day and then harass a person for not wearing a mask the next. Place everyone on edge about pronouns and systemic racism. With, you know, only you and the select in the club knowing what is a violation. It isn’t quite like Epstein, but it is still a rush for some low-rent pipsqueak of a nobody to be able to lord it over some shop owner or random person walking down the street.

What we have in America today is a system of privileges assigned by money or claimed victim status. If you’re rich and shovel money out to the right people, you are nearly untouchable. If you can claim the correct victim status, you are also untouchable. But in both cases, you are allowed to touch anyone. Only you get to decide what is good and what is bad and your word, even if it changes by the minute, is law. Everyone who isn’t rich or a victim is your plaything. Their lives are in your hands: you can cost them their job, ruin them socially. Just a bit more pushing and you might even be able to send them to prison for daring to transgress whatever insane rules you thought up just the moment before. And, remember, they think it is fun. They have forgotten about God and so their lives are without hope or purpose: to fill up this vacuum, they’ll shove just about anything in there. And the ultimate thing to satisfy is human lives. They already work towards this, step by step; checking along the way to see if anyone will really stop them. And nobody is…so they just keep going.

So, what are we to do? I mean: those of us who remember God and so have morality and wouldn’t think of abusing anyone?

We’re going to have to relearn an old lesson taught by the Scipios of Rome and Hernan Cortes: you don’t tolerate barbarian bullies. Either they go, or we do.

The time of choosing his rapidly approaching.

National Divorce or Civil War?

The other day I saw on Twitter an article about a Canadian case where a father was forced by a judge to address his daughter as a boy because that is what his daughter claims she is – a boy. This was, naturally, a minor child. It caused a lot of outrage but the real issue here isn’t whether or not a kid should transition or whether a parent should accept such a thing. These are important issues, of course, but the most crucial aspect of it was the judge ordering the father to do something he believed to be wrong – in this case, lie about his daughter’s gender. And that, really, is the point of the whole exercise: to force the lie. Either tell a lie – that your daughter is a boy – or be held in contempt of court and go to jail…where you won’t be able to do anything for anyone, least of all your daughter who is being destroyed before your eyes. But, also, if you agree to say the lie then you’ve just lost the most important thing you can be for your daughter: someone who is fearlessly honest. If you’ll lie about something like that, what won’t you lie about?

Another case that caused some comment was the Utah Senate’s vote to de-criminalize polygamy. From the article:

Sen. Deidre Henderson stood on the Senate floor Friday and asked her colleagues to reconsider a decades-old state law classifying bigamy as a felony and making implied criminals of the state’s polygamous residents.

Rather than deter or eliminate polygamy, the Spanish Fork Republican said, the state code’s threat of harsh punishments had driven polygamous communities underground; cut families off from jobs, education and health care; and given rise to a subculture that gives predators “free rein to prey upon vulnerable people.”

Note how our Conservative Republican is busy Conserving…we have to legalize polygamy because if we don’t let these weirdos do what they want, they’ll be weird. Argument sound familiar? You have heard it before. Its the way Conservatism cements Liberalism…because the real reason they are doing this is because SSM became legal and once that was done, there was no argument to be made against polygamy except the same arguments used to attack SSM…it is against Natural Law (which Conservatives are supposed to Conserve). But we jettisoned that with SSM…and by “we” I mean “we Conservatives”. Not all of us, of course, but a large enough number that made the imposition of SSM a bipartisan event in the United States.

And we were all so happy about it, weren’t we? Love is love, right? Two men. Two Women. Three Woman and a Man. A 40 year old and a 15 year old…hey, wait! What are you saying? No one is advocating for that! You insane, mean spirited bigot! The very idea!

But, you know its coming. I’m sure if I dug around enough I’d find serious scholarship arguing for no age barriers, or at least much lowered age barriers. I won’t look for it because I don’t really want to see it – and if it doesn’t exist at this moment, it will in a short while. And you know it. And the argument which will be made – and eventually by Conservative Republicans Super Conserving Conservatism – is that if we don’t lower the age bars, we’ll be giving predators “free rein to prey upon vulnerable people.”

But still in all that, the worst aspect of it all is that we are not being asked to tolerate, but to actively approve. That’s the real problem here: we definitely live in a post-Christian world which not only lacks a mechanism to enforce morality, but wouldn’t even agree most of the time on what is moral – but it isn’t enough, for those running the show, that we who still retain the old morality to live and let live. No: they insist that we participate and approve. We Christians are rather back to square one, as it were: just waiting to be rounded up and led to the arena to provide dinner for the lions. Because it is going to be like that – the Christians of 100 AD made no effort to stop the storied infamies of 1st century Rome. There was no demand that the Games be cancelled or that the licentiousness be curbed…and yet still the Roman world went mad against Christians and tore them to pieces…because they wanted the Christians to approve of the Pagan lifestyle. When such approval was withheld, off the Christians went to provide bloody entertainment to the offended Pagans. Do you get it? Your lack of immorality offends.

So, what to do?

I’m not sure – but I am inclining towards those who simply want a divorce. That the portion of America which believes a person can change their gender separates from that part of America which doesn’t believe such a thing can happen. It would take some sorting out – how much territory each side gets; divvying up the national debt and military assets; will people have a period of time where they can move freely from America I to America II (and vice versa) with immediate full citizenship status? My guess is that we’d vote by county – and if a majority votes for America I, they are America I…America II, America II. It would make for a bit of a chopped up America II (the Left side) as they have majorities in far few counties but that could be address by negotiation…which would also be a drawn out process.

But, if we don’t divorce, we’ll have to fight. One thing I can’t see is us staying together and at peace when the two sides differ not just on trivia like forms of government, but on basic things like “2 plus 2 equals 4”. For our citizens who really think that “genderfluid” is a thing, 2 plus 2 equals whatever the hell they want at the moment. I’d rather we divorced – because if we fight, then the losing side doesn’t get to live in the America of the winning side. And I mean, at all.

Where the Shooters Come From

RSM delved into the El Paso shooter’s background. Its pretty much exactly what you would expect. Parents are divorced. They taught him love and tolerance, but apparently neglected such basics as “right and wrong” and “how to use a GPS” (he got lost on his way to his massacre). His mom is a nurse and dad is a therapist…so, likely not poor people, but their son was on food stamps (how in heck a single man with no kids gets food stamps we’ll leave for another time).

Not too long ago I was in conversation with a 20 year old. A very bright person attending college. The product of a broken home, but still fairly well adjusted. Over the course of the conversation (several people were there) this youngster asserted to racist views. I was very surprised at this, at first. After the encounter, it stuck in my mind and I pondered it. How does a person brought up long after slavery and Jim Crow and put through an education system which relentlessly preaches against racism become a racist? It was simple once I hit on it: because this youngster was born after Jim Crow and was relentlessly taught not just that racism is bad, but that white people are inherently racist, and thus bad.

People, you see, don’t like to be taught they are bad. I’m sure it infuriated black people back in the day to have whole swaths of the system essentially preach their inferiority to whites. On balance, the petty racism a black person would encounter was probably less of an affront than his very government and society telling him that he was second rate. For a couple decades now, white kids in public schools have been taught precisely that: they are inferior. They are born racists; they have unearned privilege; on and on like that. None of it being remotely true; and some white kid gets an earful of that and becomes resentful. Couple that with being a failure (as all these shooters are), being entirely ignorant of actual history (and thus having no way to be proud of anything outside their miserable selves) and from backgrounds likely to remove all real moral instruction, and that’s where you get the mass murderers.

Justice Thomas Tells the Truth About Abortion

Clarence Thomas, apparently upset that the Court decided to dodge the abortion issue this week, has some words to say on the matter – noting the real basis of abortion:

Like many elites of her day, Sanger accepted that eugenics was “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.” Sanger, The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Rev., Oct. 1921, p. 5 (Propaganda). She agreed with eugenicists that “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’” was “the greatest present menace to civilization.” Ibid. Particularly “in a democracy like that of the United States,” where “[e]quality of political power has . . . been bestowed upon the lowest elements of our population,” Sanger worried that “reckless spawning carries with it the seeds of destruction.” Pivot of Civilization 177–178.

Back in Sanger’s day, many African-Americans understood that “unfit” was another word for “black”. These days, thanks largely to very effective lies, this understanding is muted, and we actually have black people carrying on Sanger’s work of eliminating black people. Make no mistake about it: birth control isn’t remotely the control of birth. It is the prevention of birth. As Chesterton pointed out – only very slightly tongue-in-cheek – real birth control would be all babies being born, and then we killed those we don’t like. Birth control, as such, is probably doing more to prevent the fit than the unfit from being born – but abortion: that allows you to get right at the problem. You just put your abortion clinics in poor and/or heavily minority neighborhoods, and you’re right on your way to eliminating the “unfit”.

OTOH, there is grounds for hope:

The last abortion clinic in the state of Missouri may shut down this week and its closing may have nothing to do with the new pro-life law the state legislature passed to ban abortions.

Currently the only abortion facility doing abortions on unborn babies in the state of Missouri is located in St Louis and run by the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Planned Parenthood officials said Tuesday that the abortion center may have to close down because the state Health Department may refuse to issue a new license for the abortion business.

HT: Don Surber

The War Against Life

People would understand better the popular fury against the witches, if they remembered that the malice most commonly attributed to them was preventing the birth of children. – G K Chesterton

And, now:

At least 60 women have joined the BirthStrike movement, which encourages women to refuse to have children because they believe the earth is in crisis due to climate change. Members of this newly formed group believe it would be unjust to raise children in a world that could look vastly different than the world they grew up in.

We’ve come a long way, baby: now to not having babies because the air might be hotter a hundred years from now. There is an insanity at the bottom of all of this, and I can only describe it as a hatred of life. We have people – many, many millions of people – who are so miserably unhappy that they just can’t stand the thought of people just, you know, living. It gets them upset…and, so, they come up with twisted ideas like late-term abortion, assisted suicide and, now, refusing to carry out the basic task of producing the next generation.

I know precisely why these people hate life, of course. It is plain as a pikestaff: they have forgotten about God and so have no hope. All else flows from that. If they’d just remember God for a moment, they’d recover hope and then stop killing babies and oldsters and would joyously welcome their own children into the world.

The sick and twisted times we live in all stem from the same thing: forgetting about God. Sozhenitsyn noticed it decades ago. Once you take God out of the equation, what purpose can life possibly have? It is either greedily grab all you can, or kill yourself in despair. No God, no point to living – it is all just a mechanical and pointless process. Pray for these poor fools.

Maybe Infanticide Isn’t All That Popular?

Is America finally moving to solidly pro-life? This poll says we may:

In just one month, Americans have made a sudden and dramatic shift away from the pro-choice position and toward a pro-life stance, according to a new Marist poll.

The shift was led by Democrats and those under 45 years old, according to a survey taken Feb.12-17 in the wake of efforts in several states to legalize abortion up until birth.

“Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll.

In a substantial, double-digit shift, according to the poll, Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as pro-choice (47 percent). Just last month, a similar survey conducted by The Marist Poll found Americans more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by 17 percentage points (55 to 38 percent). Democrats moved in their pro-life identity from 20 percent to 34 percent

Perhaps the push by Planned Parenthood to relieve themselves of legal liability by essentially legalizing infanticide is proving a step too far? I hope so. That is what all the late term abortion laws are about, by the way: PP wants no more Gosnell’s. They could do that by not being butcher shops, but I guess they feel that post-facto legalization of Gosnell’s crimes is better. One thing I’ll say about PP – they definitely know how to lobby. We should be studying their methods carefully…they’ve got the entire Democrat leadership locked down, even when PP is demanding things which are political poison.

We Need to Oppose Evil

I happened to obtain a copy of Judgement at Nuremberg and, so, I naturally watched it. Who wouldn’t? Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark, Burt Lancaster, Maximilian Schell…and even a small role by an exceptionally young William Shatner. I had seen the movie once before, many years ago, and it was far better than I remembered. What I liked about it is that it didn’t just go for the easy take a movie like that could have. It showed the Germans as all too human. The speech by Schell portraying the German defense counsel pretty much summed up the attitudes of the War generation Germans who emerged from Nazism: boiled down, “if we’re guilty (but we’re really not), then everyone is guilty!”. At the end of the movie, with the Cold War dawning, Spencer Tracy’s character (he playing the chief judge) is urged by nearly everyone to just drop the matter – find the Nazis not guilty or, if guilty, impose mild sentences. None of that: they are all sentenced to life in prison. And he sentences them because evil must be opposed. Which is true. And in that is the real tragedy of the 20th century.

Because evil wasn’t really opposed. Not in any vigorous and consistent manner. The war against the Nazis was a spasm, not a determination. It was only because Hitler forced the issue that anyone fought him. Had he refrained from war in 1939, he would have lived on until his natural death. His regime would have continued. Everyone would have kept trading and negotiating with it. The internal inconsistencies of the Nazi regime might eventually have brought a crisis, but not for decades. Just as the internal inconsistencies of the Soviet Union yet allowed it to live 70 years. And even when Hitler forced the issue and the world went to war against him, it still wasn’t really opposing evil, because the USSR was in partnership in fighting Hitler. If you use one gangster to kill another, you really aren’t fighting against gangsterism.

It used to be that evil would be opposed. The Romans were bloody minded about the Carthaginians because the Carthaginians were evil. Cortez was in quest for gold and glory, but after he and his men found out what the Aztecs had been up to, it became war to the death, because the Aztecs were evil. These days, we barely recognize evil when we see it. Even in our use of the Nazis as the standard of evil, most of the people referring to the standard couldn’t tell you one thing about the Nazis – they couldn’t tell you why the Nazis were bad, that is.

But it is more than just Nazis. They are the exemplar of evil, and deservedly so, but its not like anyone is really trying to do Nazism again. I bring this up because right about the time I was watching Judgement, I saw this series of tweets from a Conservative hammering Tucker Carlson for pointing out that our Ruling Class is doing bad things. The basic thrust of the tweets is that if things are bad, it is because we, the people, made them bad. In response, I tweeted this out:

The outcomes we’ve been having for 60 years have not been the result of the free interplay of public actors. We’ve had things we never wanted imposed on us.

Did you ever vote to legalize abortion? To have millions of illegals here? To have big banks bailed out after they screwed the pooch? When did you pass judgement allowing functional illiterates to graduate high school?

You did none of these things. They happened without your permission. You were promised abortion would be rare: that we’d amnesty and that would end illegal immigration: you were told we’d get better education.

You think it was an accident that you got the opposite of what you wanted? An accident that you’ve got policies that are a negation of facts and logic? No: this sh** was intentional.

And now how do you propose to switch it back? To get a government that does what you tell it to do? By working with the people who, wink and nod, gave you what you specifically didn’t want? Wake the F up

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve long seen that Conservative on twitter and I think he’s probably a pretty good guy. Certainly very intelligent. But, like all too many, he doesn’t recognize evil when he sees it. Think about just one thing I said for a moment: functional illiterates are allowed to graduate high school. You know that shouldn’t happen, but have you realized that it is immoral to allow it to happen? That it shouldn’t have happened even one time? That anyone who allowed it to happen is worthy of severe punishment? And, yet, no one calls for the arrest of those who allow it to happen. We, in fact, have people who insist that we allow such people to continue to be in charge. No one would approve of an illiterate graduating…but, without any consent of anyone, it happens. How? I’ll tell you:

Because those in charge of the education system don’t have your priority in mind. To them, the education system isn’t to provide educated citizens. That takes effort and is a real pain in the neck. No: what those in charge have other priorities. First off, high pay for themselves. Hiring more people like themselves. Making sure no one ever gets rid of them. These are all far more important than making sure Johnny can read. Johnny is a gigantic problem. They’d like to not have him, at all; but that would rather expose the game. They used to flunk Johnny out, but that brought attention to the fact that Johnny isn’t reading. So, now, Johnny gets his diploma. Which action is evil – Johnny and the taxpayers are both being cheated. And the cheaters pass out the bogus diploma and collect the ill-gotten gains. This is what is traditionally known as fraud and theft.

But we don’t call it that. Because we don’t call anything by its proper name any more.

Part of the appeal, for me, of Donald Trump is his willingness to call things by their proper name. Even his gross insults are really no more than calling people what they are. It is this truth telling that makes him hated more than anything else. I remember how ballistic people went when Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”. The phrase was strictly accurate – no one in possession of their senses could argue otherwise. But people were furious that Reagan had said it. Why? Because he was committing that horrible sin (in modern eyes) of calling something by its proper name. That had to be nipped in the bud. Same thing when Bush called our enemies an “axis of evil”; remember how much people hated that, too? But such things were rare until Trump: he calls things what they are 20 times a day.

But we do have to get back to it. To call wrong things, wrong. To call evil people, evil. To refuse to voluntarily provide any power or prestige to those who make and do the wrong things. Only if we see evil and oppose it can it be stopped. We’ve been blind and silent about it for a very long time and so it has eaten very deep into our civilization. We still have, I think, time to purge it – but only if we see it and say it, first.