There is an old saying that nature abhors a vacuum, the belief being that when something abdicates or abandons its place in the natural order that place does not remain empty; something else rushes in to fill it. Sometimes, it isn’t even a matter of abandonment, but of the replacement being too strong to be held back. Anyone who has ever seen efforts to strengthen a levee with sandbags can understand this particular displacement scenario. But whether it is a matter of abdication or elimination, simply put, the nature of things tends toward maintenance of the status quo in general if not in the particulars. It would be hard to find many educated people who, with the opening of a new millennium, would have predicted the rise of the medieval Crescent not only in the Middle East but in Europe and even North America. The last time Islam posed a threat to the West, men wore knee britches, silk stockings and long wigs while the Ottoman Empire still inhabited the map of the world. Yet, here we are, little more than two decades into the 21st century and there is a very real threat of a world-wide Caliphate and the victory of the Prophet and his “religion” in every place in the world from Morocco to Mexico and Nigeria to Norway. The Christian Church, once the foundation of Western Civilization and gaining converts in nations that never knew the Roman Empire is fast becoming a ghost—and not a very Holy One at that! If one were to ask Westerners in Europe, Britain and the United States (and Canada), what happened?! most would find no words to describe how the civilization of Plato and Aristotle, Cesar and Charlemagne, the Sun King and Thomas Jefferson could find itself sinking ever more rapidly into oblivion while those openly proclaiming their murderous intentions against everything Christian and Western are protected by the very governments of the West using political correctness and the concept of “hate speech”—which, by the way, only applies to those who resist. If the cultural institutions of the West fail to recognize their danger, much less fight back against that danger, it is even more incredible that the main victim of jihad—the Christian Church—seems equally oblivious to the danger posed to its adherents. Using the pretext of Christ’s admonition that we are “to love one another,” many Christians and their churches fail—or refuse—to understand the peril that so-called “radical Islam” poses not only to the Church, but to the West. As noted, in many instances, the governments of Western nations are no longer even resisting the institution of the Caliphate. They have abandoned their own people to an invasion of Third World revolutionaries who have already killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousand of non-Muslims and even their own “brethren” in their mad crusade to raise the Crescent over the graves of Christianity and Western civilization. One of the things that many in the West cannot fathom is why so many especially young Westerners embrace Islam. They do not come from the ethnic and racial backgrounds that might explain their conversion, but it would seem every day more and more ordinary Americans and British and French and Norwegians embrace the Prophet. Why? And here we must return to our opening point; that is, that nature abhors a vacuum. At some point in the 20th Century at least Western Christianity determined to try to increase interest among youth by reaching out and making it easier to be a Christian. Fasting, prayer, tithing, moral absolutes and church attendance were considered in many instances a barrier to the acceptance by young people of church membership. This was especially true during the 1960s when much of what before had been accepted cultural norms were not only scrutinized, but often abandoned. The Church tried to deal with this situation by adopting more worldly viewpoints in hopes that the disillusioned (and narcissistic) youth of the West would not abandon what many saw as too restrictive to their chosen lifestyle. In some instances, this worked. For example, the institution of Saturday night Mass in the Catholic Church has permitted young Catholics to participate in Sunday morning sports while maintaining at least some association with their “faith.” But how permanent that association will remain once those involved are no longer concerned with soccer, football and lacrosse remains to be seen. The problem with this easing of standards is not for the minimally involved, but for that young man or young woman who seeks meaning in his or her life; that is, that individual who wants a belief system that challenges and, by doing so, fulfills his (or her) spiritual needs. Very little of this kind of rigorous spiritual exercise exists in the West’s tepid Christianity which is often more secular than religious. For such seekers, Islam presents an all-encompassing way of life that promises rewards—and punishments—for the believer. Very early on in the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, a young man from the “left coast” was found fighting with the Taliban. He was an example of the failure of modern liberalism having grown up within a belief system that offered nothing of consequence or value. This young man was a seeker. At a different time and with a more robust Christian society, he might have become a priest or a pastor or a missionary but in today’s America, he had to adopt a 12th century moral monstrosity in order to find any meaning in his 21st century life! The fate of this young man is a seminal example of a moral and spiritual vacuum being filled by an aggressive moral and spiritual movement. Furthermore, it does not matter that those of us who retain some connection with Western Civilization find that movement demonic and immoral! All that matters is that it provides what is needed to those who cannot abide a moral and spiritual vacuum. There was a study done some years ago regarding an endangered waterfowl. Conservationists hovered about the nesting grounds of these birds to see what could be done to increase their numbers. As they watched the young hatch, they noticed that the poor little things spent virtually hours pecking their way out of their shells only to lie exhausted in the nest for a considerable time afterwards. The naturalists gathered together to discuss this situation, and it was determined that they would go and carefully, while the mother bird was off the nest for a few moments, weaken the shell at the time of hatching. To maintain a scientific balance, however, it was decided to do this with only 25% of the hatchlings. The plan was quickly put into effect and sure enough, at the time of the hatching, the weakened eggs gave way much more quickly and the young hatchlings were far less exhausted by their labors. Great were the expectations of the naturalists until they discovered a few days later that all the young birds so assisted—were dead in their nests! At first there was some thought that the “helpers” had somehow contaminated the eggs and that the birds died as the result of infection, but examinations of the dead chicks proved that such was not the case. In the end, it was determined that the very struggle by the young to escape their calcium prison hardened and strengthened them so that they were able to survive those vicissitudes they were all fated to experience in the wild. In other words, what those naturalists discovered to their dismay was that struggle is a part of life and necessary for the development of both body and spirit! This is something that today’s Christian churches need to rediscover while there is still time, or rather, if there is still time.
Of all of the sciences in which man is engaged, none is so pure as mathematics. Nothing external to the process bears upon it. 2 plus 2 equals 4 and 4 divided by 2 equals 2. One’s economic status, race, gender and religion count not one “jot or tittle” with regards to the correct answer. It doesn’t matter if you are poor or rich, black or white, man or woman, good or bad—the result is the result. Indeed, even in advanced forms of the discipline when it is possible to arrive at two conclusions, there is always a rational reason for the findings; they are not the product of mere confusion, still less of desire. That is why I wondered why the government efforts to indoctrinate our children developed during the Obama administration—also known as “Common Core”—had such confusing and, frankly ridiculous—means of dealing with simple arithmetic. I have seen some of the examples of how children will be “taught” to deal with ordinary math problems that require many times the effort by which the problem would have been solved in the past and which frequently do not even lead to a correct answer after all the hoopla and hullabaloo involved! Why, I wondered, did those who constructed this mental morass even bother! It was supposed to teach but instead it confused. It was supposed to empower but instead diminishes the ability of whatever poor soul is exposed to it. The mathematics in Common Core is a sort of infectious agent which apparently is intended to lead to a weakened intellect and lowered ability to perform even the most basic of tasks—such as making change or taking measurements. And again, I wondered why—until I remembered that mathematics was probably the only discipline left in our culture unaffected by the mind-destroying concept of political correctness. No longer are truth and facts sufficient to form opinions or act thereupon. Now, all that matters is how people feel about any given matter whether it is history or politics or sociology or even art and entertainment. Falsehoods are embraced—indeed insisted upon—if the facts prove to be offensive to this or that protected class. “Better red than dead,” an old saying from the 50s and 60s is replaced—in name if not in spirit—by the idea that it is better to lose all freedom than to chance “offending” some particular group even when what is being said is as correct as the answer “4” to the question of “2” plus “2.” And that is why mathematics must be as sullied, soiled and perverted as just about every other discipline in our hapless society. When an innocent child or even a discerning adult realizes that there are correct answers that have nothing to do with the situation extant, that there are “absolutes,” moral and otherwise and that there are facts and truths that may challenge our most cherished beliefs, it becomes impossible for the establishment to continue to promote falsehood and relativism to support its worldview. So, having polluted just about everything else with emotion-laden determinations based upon desire rather than reason, our government now turns to Common Core to destroy the last bastion of common sense: mathematics. One has to wonder if our nation of sheep will permit this offense against reason or if they will simply turn on the TV and opt out.
If there is any question that is asked today that immediately makes me conclude that the questioner is an ass—and that the respondent isn’t much better—it is the question, “How do you FEEL about that?” Of course, the “that” may be anything from the weather to a national tragedy—and everything in between—but the question always refers to feelings. Nobody today asks, “What do you think about that?” I believe that if such a question were to be asked, the individual would be so dumbfounded as to be unable to respond at all! I really do wonder if the verb “to feel” has replaced the verb “to think.” I don’t know, but certainly everything today is predicated upon emotion—what “feelings” are—rather than rationality—what thinking is! And this is not new. Many years ago, Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen declared, “We live in a sensate age. We are no longer governed by faith, we are no longer governed by reason. We are governed by feelings.” As annoying as this situation is for the rational and the knowledgeable, far, far worse, it is dangerous! When any social construct runs on emotion rather than reason, the results will be catastrophic. It’s not enough to feel that the plane has enough fuel to reach its destination; one must know that it does or one risks catastrophe. It is not enough to feel that the lump in one’s breast is benign; one must know whether it is or not! Feelings, like the Biblical sand, make a poor foundation for beliefs and actions. Liberal actress Jane Fonda in the 1960s was heard to declare about her political and social views, “I must be right—I’m so sincere!” Sincerity is an emotion, a feeling. As such, it is no guide to accuracy. I may sincerely believe that I am going to Miami when I board a plane bound for Chicago, but when I land, it will be at O’Hare, and not Miami International! But this matter has gone much further than a decided suppression of the American IQ! Almost every facet of the culture is now in the hands of those for whom “feelings” take precedence over “knowledge” and especially the knowledge of the consequences of permitting those “feelings” to govern our reactions. Is it any wonder that we suffer through the Age of the Eternally Offended? Taking offense is—you guessed it!—a feeling! And since reason and knowledge are of no value, it doesn’t matter if you are “offended” by something because of your own ignorance or prejudice or because you have misunderstood the whole thing! It is enough that you are offended to make whatever offends you—however benign—considered worthy of censure with all that that entails! We haven’t had so many hurt feelings since Adam and Eve used notoriously prickly grape leaves to cover their tender parts in the Garden! And, of course, if knowledge, facts, truth and rationality are no longer the criteria for discourse and social action, we are on the verge of chaos! Public policy, framed by “feelings,” then becomes whatever the largest and most powerful number of “the offended” want it to be, no matter how despotic and senseless. Of course, when mindless tyranny is the policy of the State, the results are always detrimental to both freedom and survival. History is filled with social and political actions based upon madness. Today is just one further example!
Nothing is eternal but God. Whether it is a nano-particle with a life span too small to measure or the universe itself. Everything that has a beginning has an end. That is why Christian ascetics meditate on death. Only by understanding that everything ends are we able to deal properly with everything that continues. As existence is a progression from start to finish, the conscious mind learns to see at what point the thing of present interest is in its progression to its inevitable end. Some are obvious: if the banana is green, it isn’t yet ripe. If it is yellow, it is at its peak. If it is black, it is at the end of its cycle. And the same observations can be made of just about everything around us including ourselves. This ability becomes all important when one is trying to deal with, overcome, adjust to and/or make a proper response to matters within one’s own world and that includes our culture. It is one thing to judge a banana’s “life cycle,” it is quite another to determine the “life cycle” of a civilization. That’s why books such as Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire hold – or at least used to hold – the attention of the learned. For there are certain indicators regarding where any culture is in its progress from birth to death! Indeed, these “markers” have been elucidated many times and when presented it would appear that our present culture is at the last stages of this time-line. More and more people are becoming aware that Western Civilization is under a deadly attack by just about every person or entity of any power or importance in the world today. Ordinary people are seeing their ordinary lives implode into mental, emotional, physical and economic chaos. Things that were always a “touchstone of normalcy” have now been wiped away as if they never existed. Those institutions that once provided us with what we considered to be “normalcy” such as our churches and other religious and cultural associations are often unrecognizable! The basic moral structures of our lives and the lives of our society have been abandoned and rejected to be replaced by a belief system correctly adjudged as psychopathic and demonic! The lessons of that favorite reading matter of most Christians – the Bible – is finding fulfillment and warnings such as “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness . . .!” [Isaiah 5:20] are so openly obvious as to be unquestionable in their meaning and intent! And as the culture – like the banana – becomes ever more black, other Scriptural references that at one time might have been somewhat obscure, become more and more clear to the despair of the righteous. When Jesus Christ stood before the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, Pilate asked if He were a King. Christ told him, “My kingdom is not of this world. . . You say that I am a king. I have been born and come into the world for this reason—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” Pilate then asks that most seminal question, “What is truth?” [John: 37-38] There is no more important question today than that of Pilate’s, WHAT IS TRUTH? For we have lost the understanding of the essential nature of absolutes – including truth! – and that loss is leading to our doom. Throughout history, people did indeed lie, especially those who followed the Prince of this world. Jesus said that the devil was a murderer and a liar from the beginning and hence those who embrace his worldview are, per se, liars. However, decent people have always eschewed the lie as destructive to all things that are good, a fact that has been proven throughout history. Again, normal, ordinary, decent people have rejected the lie as a danger to themselves and their civilization. That is why liars have always done their best to conceal their behavior so that they might foster support among honest people for their wicked agendas. In the past, however, once the lie was revealed, all but the most corrupt abandoned the agenda supported by the lie even if it held conclusions to which they might agree! Alas, today that is no longer the case. This fatal failure to follow and be guided by Truth manifests itself in two ways: first, people were apparently so cowed and frightened by the ruling elite’s use of a highly questionable “medical emergency” that they not only failed to seek the truth, but if what they learned didn’t agree with the establishment’s viewpoint – however questionable or even ridiculous – it was rejected out of hand! It didn’t matter how competent those who revealed such truths, even when their claims were essentially supported by the establishment itself! It was enough that people craved safety, however unattainable, that they chose comfortable lies over distressing truths. Of course, this is very much a part of a culture that has embraced what is desired over what is real and thus today we reject reality to embrace delusion with the set and fixed understanding that to do so is sufficient to overcome the laws of nature and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God. But worse than this manifestation of the rejection of reality itself is a worldview that spans all parts of the ideological and political spectrum even to the point at which good people who once founded all of their actions upon truth are willing to forgo goodness for the sake of a “desired result.” What is this manifestation? How is it defined and disclosed? Simply this: when the facts are revealed and their consequences known, in the past, people reacted according to their moral viewpoint. If the consequences honestly led to a desiredresult, all well and good. But if the result were obtained dishonestly – no matter how much that result was desired! – an honest man would reject it. That was the way in which one could tell the honest from the dishonest; that is, no matter how much the result was “desired,” if obtained dishonestly, the principled man rejected it. Such a mindset existing in the majority, assured that the underlying moral foundation of the society was sound and one could trust those matters involved in the society’s functioning whether political, scientific, medical or ecclesiastical! Today, much of this essential honesty has been lost. Even “good” people, when presented with a desiredresult are far less concerned about how honestly it was obtained! The idea seems to be that the consequences are all that matter and how those were obtained is of little or no interest. Of course, the problem with this mindset is that once truth is abandoned in order to obtain a chosen result, it really doesn’t matter what the agenda is! What is “good” and what is “bad” becomes a matter of choice rather than truth. Thus, we have a culture that can (and does) call good, bad and vice versa and since there is no factual foundation for that determination, it then becomes a matter of which side has the most adherents or the largest public voice. In Christian – that is, absolute – morality, right is not dependent anything but the truth. Two plus two is always four even if the whole world rejects that result! So today, when I see all that information that is “out there” being read, assimilated and responded to by people in ways that prove it is the information that matters and not whether that information is true or false, I mourn for good and honest folk who have abandoned the talisman of truth and embraced the idol of personal desire. For once a lie is accepted, however glorious, there is no more hope! Our mother Eve was assured by the serpent, that, should she eat of what God had forbidden “You will surely not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” [Genesis 3:4-5] She chose the devil’s lie over God’s truth and all that we suffer today is a consequence of that original choice. What is Truth? Truth is everything for without it we have nothing!
During the famous – or infamous – Canadian Truckers Convoy, that bastion of clear and honest thinking, The Washington Post printed an opinion piece that declared that the expectation of individual freedom “is a key component of white supremacy!” Never let it be said that the Post ever disappointed its “hard left” readership! However, it is also interesting to note that even our enemies acknowledge that truly great concepts arise from Whites. Yet, the Post’s rather odd interpretation of the blessings of freedom and liberty was challenged by one internet publication, The Blaze. That worthy group opined that, “expecting individual freedom is a ‘key component of white supremacy’ is the latest in the effort to undermine our constitutional republic.” Well, certainly it is that, but it also illustrates that even these mental midgets recognize that really good things come from whites! The column referenced was written by Taylor Dysart, a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently, academia is no more reasonable or intelligent than our current leftist journalists. Mr. Dysart began his “reasoning process” (if anything so unreasonable could be identified as a “reasoning process”) by attacking the Canadian Truckers Convoy that attempted to end the tyrannous Covid-19 vaccine mandates placed on truckers by Canada’s own communist regime. Dysart derided the truckers as “explicitly racist” and said that the convoy’s stated effort to restore their – the truckers’ – constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is “a key component of white supremacy.” The author also charged that the convoy’s motives were rooted in Canada’s settler-colonial history: ”The convoy has surprised onlookers in the United States and Canada, both because of the explicitly racist and violent perspectives of some of the organizers and because the action seems to violate norms of Canadian ‘politeness . . .'” but Dysart claimed. “. . . the convoy represents the extension of a strain of Canadian history that has long masked itself behind ‘peacefulness’ or ‘unity:’ settler colonialism.” Of course, the convoy came about to protest vaccine mandates on truckers, and even the leftist mainstream media reports indicated it was a largely peaceful protest. Neither did Dysart cite any violence on the part of the truckers, but he still attacked the organizers for failing to be “obedient” to the “well intentioned” [!] efforts of Prime Minister Fidel – ah, Justin – Trudeau and his bully boys. Dysart opined, “While the convoy’s supporters have characterized the protest as a peaceful movement, uninformed by ‘politics, race, religion, or any personal beliefs,’ many supporters have been associated with or expressed racist, Islamophobic, and white-supremacist views . . . (the) primarily white supporters of the Freedom Convoy argue that pandemic mandates infringe upon their constitutional rights to freedom . . (t)he notion of ‘freedom’ was historically and remains intertwined with whiteness, as historian Tyler Stovall has argued.” According to The Blaze, In Tyler Stovall’s book “White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea,” – the basis for Dysart’s conclusion – he, Stovall, contends that the Statue of Liberty “promised both freedom and whiteness to European immigrants.” The book allegedly “provides vital new perspectives on the inherent racism behind our most cherished beliefs about freedom, liberty, and human rights.” In keeping with Stovall’s contentions, Dysart alleged that, “The belief that one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of white supremacy. This explains why the Freedom Convoy members see themselves as entitled to freedom, no matter the public health consequences to those around them.” Of course, the fact that there were no true legitimate public health consequences involved was never addressed by Dysart. He accepts out of hand, the same propaganda that has been handed out by the bio-weapons purveyors and their political allies from the beginning, propaganda that has already killed and crippled millions of people around the planet. Conservative supporters of the convoy’s month-long protest were quick to respond, as reported by The Blaze. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) made the true point regarding the whole stupid argument: “Why do conservatives want to keep critical race theory out of schools? Because it leads to the insane belief that ‘one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of White supremacy.'” Movie producer and political commentator Dinesh D’Souza pointed out, “If freedom is a white supremacist notion as this Washington Post article insists, what should we be aiming for instead? Unfreedom? Incarceration? Slavery?” Reason.com Associate editor Liz Wolfe reasoned that, “When you call everything ‘white supremacy,’ the term ceases to have any effect whatsoever.” And so it does. Just as those who use the phrase cease to have any effect or importance whatsoever as well. Soon any efforts to remain alive and healthy will also be seen as "racist."
When I was young, there was a very famous and much articulated saying by Voltaire, to wit: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Everyone—or at least everyone who was rational, moral and decently educated—knew that this was the creed of a free society in general and “America” in particular. Admittedly, at times even during our history, this sentiment was more honored in the breach than in the observance. Political correctness is not a new invention! But, on the whole, Americans have admitted to and acknowledged the right of unpopular views to be openly expressed especially in the Public Square. In fact, that sentiment is articulated in the first of the ten amendments to the United States Constitution that became known as the “Bill of Rights.” Even more to the point, people did not necessarily become pariahs for holding views contrary to the current orthodoxy whatever that was. Charles Lindberg did not lose his status as a hero when he came out against the United States taking up arms against Germany in World War II. True, even Lindberg had to embrace “war fever” after Pearl Harbor, but many understood and sympathized with the Lone Eagle’s desire to avoid another European war even if his apparent sympathy with the Nazis was looked upon askance. Indeed, the above sentiment is most apt to go out of favor in times of war. When he was inaugurated, Abraham Lincoln used his office far beyond its constitutional powers when, among other things, he suspended habeas corpus and issued orders to arrest and incarcerate without due process over (it is believed) forty-thousand Northern citizens who disagreed with that war. Later—much later—it was acknowledged that Lincoln violated the Constitution far more than he adhered to what was supposed to be “the law of the land.” But most of those acknowledging that fact either excuse or applaud his actions. The fact is, whether we are considering the United States or any other nation, empire or tribe, in times of war, there is very little sympathy for anything “unpatriotic” however legal, moral or just. As Judge Holt says in the film The Conspirator, “In time of war, the law is silent.” Sadly, this is not only wrong but evil simply because for all intents and purposes, when the law is most needed, it is not. We now live in a time of triumphant political correctness in which we not only fail to defend unpopular speech, but we condemn that speech and those who utter it. Yet, this is also a very odd period because though we are immersed in several wars—including the ubiquitous “war on terror”—the fact is we do not condemn those who speak out against these wars, but rather, against those who voice certain ideas and viewpoints within the culture with which those purveyors of politic correctness disagree. Worse, it now seems that any viewpoint that does not embrace the totality of the agenda of those same purveyors are labeled with the most powerful weapon in their arsenal of censorship, the dreaded universal race card. For instance: You do not accept the man-made origins of global warming? You are a racist! You do not accept open borders and total amnesty for millions of illegals? You are a racist. You do not accept a double standard which excuses crime and corruption when certain groups break the law but not others? You are a racist. You criticize the current progressive agenda in this country? You are a racist. You support the Constitution—and especially the Second Amendment? You are a racist. In fact, just recently, a black gentleman declared that ending Saturday mail delivery was “racist.” I think you get the point. No matter how false, no matter how silly, no matter how obviously dishonest, to disagree with the current “orthodoxy” is to be a “racist.” It is even more interesting when you realize that there actually is blatant—even violent racism in the society but those involved are considered incapable of being “racist” because—you guessed it!—of their race! Looking at the present state of American culture, there is another saying from ancient Greece that comes readily to mind: “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” I don’t know about other folks, but I am mortally tired of explaining myself to these politically correct types—and no wonder! They aren’t interested in what I think. They aren’t even interested in what I say! They are only interested in quieting a voice—any voice—saying what they do not wish to hear—whatever that may be. You cannot converse with such people. You cannot debate them. You cannot even argue with them! Why?Because they are not really people at all. They are the cheering section of and for a socio-political-economic-moral view of the world that brooks no deviation, no dispute, no debate and no diversity. In a way, that’s what makes the whole matter so very, very odd! Because the most potent code word in this movement—after “racist,” of course—is “diversity.” Nothing is more important, nothing is more needful, nothing is more required of any society than “diversity!” And yet, actual “diversity” is just what is notpermitted. Everyone in the society must hold the same views, must demand the same relief from the same social, economic and political ills, must condemn the same “wrong-headedness” and worship at the same political and ideological altars. Those who fail to do so are not just “wrong,” but wicked and the cause of all that is unjust and unfair in the world! Obviously, no humane, intelligent or rational discourse can occur when one side at least looks upon those with whom it disagrees as evil incarnate! Americans were more sympathetic with Lindberg and his affection for Germany than they are today with the “monsters” who practice “political incorrectness” no matter what their motives.
As the debates raging in this country go on, I have noticed something that I’m sure others on “my side” of these debates have also noticed; that is, that most of those on the Right or conservative sides are believers in Voltaire’s sentiment, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Of course, there are those on the right who, tired of lies, threats and insults no longer hold that viewpoint. Why? Because it gets tiring when all attempts at dialogue and/or debate end with name calling on the part of your opponents! And we all know the standard Leftist “comebacks,” that is, those who disagree with their viewpoint however inane or insane those viewpoints, are either a member of the “far right” — a term indicating anyone to the right of Stalin — or, more usual these days, one is a “racist.” This term, interestingly enough, is also used on conservative blacks, a fact that only goes to show the term is a standard – and mindless – weapon in the hands of the Left, without any real meaning other than as an attempt to silence their opponents. In the end, this mindset removes any attempt at not only discourse, but compromise. You cannot compromise with people who see you not as having an opinion with which they disagree, but someone who is intrinsically EVIL. And, of course, that also ends any attempt at discourse for how can one have discourse with evil? Parenthetically, that is something that we on the right have been trying to do for a long, long time only to learn that this leopard at least never changes its spots. I remember learning from former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson that at the time to criticize Black Lives Matter — a hate group if there ever was one! — the person involved could and did lose his or her job. One man was fired because his WIFE wrote a letter to a newspaper critical of the group! People were being advised to openly support and even financially contribute to BLM — OR ELSE! In the past, such horrific denial of fundamental constitutional rights would have resulted in a lawsuit and big bucks proceeding to the injured party. Today, however, the courts are as liable to uphold the actions of the employer as sustain the rights of the employee given the topic. We no longer have a viable legal system. It now seems to depend upon the ideology of the judge trying the case. And, of course, the unhappy consequence of the political success of our WOKE culture with its “liberal” leaders are ever more leftist judges and prosecutors. Alas, while many Americans are concerned about losing the Second Amendment, we may have already lost the First and with it our rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. Once those are gone beyond restoration, the Second Amendment is easily nullified. As well, we also seem to have, in many instances, lost the protection of the civilian police who, we are told, made UNNECESSARY the Second Amendment. If this becomes the rationale, there will no longer be anywhere to seek justice in a world gone mad.
Americans who support beleaguered (former) President Donald Trump should give very careful consideration to the following historical utterances, old and new, and what they mean for us in America today: From Ulysses S. Grant's Report on Conditions in the South - 18 December 1865: “I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good faith. The questions which have heretofore divided the sentiment of the people of the two sections— slavery and state's rights, or the right of a state to secede from the Union—they regard as having been settled forever by the highest tribunal—arms – that man can resort to. I was pleased to learn from the leading men whom I met that they not only accepted the decision arrived at as final but, now that the smoke of battle has cleared away and time has been given for reflection, that this decision has been a fortunate one for the whole country, they receiving like benefits from it with those who opposed them in the field and in council.” Thus wrote Ulysses S. Grant in 1865. But if Grant was, in fact, correct, then everything decent Christian people believe is a lie! For when Grant speaks of “the highest tribunal” being arms and that the South was proven wrong because their “arms” were insufficient to protect them against the “arms” of Grant and the rest of the Union military, we hear spoken aloud and without shame—albeit in different words—that old philosophy: “might makes right!” In more modern times, the late Justice Antonin Scalia said as much; that is, that the cause of the Confederacy—the constitutionally guaranteed secession of sovereign states from the old compact—was defeated and thereby rendered unconstitutional, not by law, but by force of arms! But consider what that actually means! If that is true, then Hitler was not wrong, but bested in war. Had he prevailed, his actions would have been legitimate. The Nazis were subject to trial and execution not because of their actions, but because they could not validate those actions by force of arms! Do we really believe that? Do we really agree with former ambassador John Bolton, when he said that the American government robbed, raped and killed Southern civilians during the Civil War without due process but it was the right thing to do? It is one thing to “accept the arbitrament of the sword” as did Robert E. Lee and other Southerners after the war—for by that concept they simply meant that they had been defeated and there was nothing to do but make the best of it. No other choice lay before them other than acceptance and continuing with their lives or, in the alternative, sullen resentment and ultimate oblivion. But, that is not the same thing as acknowledging that issues of law, divine or secular, had—or could be—be legitimately settled by military might. For, if force is the final arbiter, then there is no such thing as law! It is an illusion that can be swept away by whichever contending party wields the greatest force! And if that is so, then the Constitution was never the law of the land for true authority rested and continues to rest solely with that faction that has the most fire-power!