August 1, 2017

I have worked on the following letter off and on for years. Even so it is an unfinished work. I will remedy that in the future, but for now am otherwise occupied.

Lynn Swartos

For my country,

My family,

Especially Gwen and Ashley,

a Dieu vous comant

GNOTHI SEAUTON

The history of institutions is often a history of deception and illusions: for their virtue depends on the ideas that produce and on the spirit that preserves them, and the form may remain unaltered when the substance has passed away.      –Lord Acton

The menacing totalitarian socialism now regnant in the United States is a despicable corruption of and constraint on liberalism, republican government, and society; thus our institutions and traditions, liberties and rights, principles and premises, dispositions and habits, understandings and perceptions, affections and sentiments, customs and conventions, and duties and obligations—everything that distinguished Americans as a people and a nation.

       It is a mocking subreption, hiding behind pretentions of “progress,” that has disparaged the United States ethos of limited government; spoiled its accountability; diminished our national sovereignty; supported superintending totalitarian socialist style rights and mandates; betrayed democracy by replacing objective standards with subjective fancy, hence  moral restraint with license; betrayed liberty and savaged property rights in the interests of the powerful; spurned conscience and toleration for an absolutist state reeducation in relativism and sensitivity; deconstructed local, state, and regional freedom in favor of government centralization and domination; nurtured an inherently dishonest multiculturalism that divides rather than unites; instilled a feminism whose adherents behave with the ignorant destructiveness of primitives; acquiesced to interminable violence and murder of the citizenry by various terror groups; exchanged justice, pluralism, and patriotism for arbitrary power, diktats, and subservience; and truth for falsehood. It is a death of the intellectual and the moral, a promotion of irrationality and depravity that trumpets its fiendish treachery, “sprung from night and hell” the perpetrators “leave nothing unrent, unrifled, unravaged, or unpolluted with the slime of their filthy offal.”1

     “One does not have to be an admirer of Burke or Tocqueville—although it helps—to appreciate the fact that liberty depends on the vitality and multiplicity of institutions which mediate between the individual and the state.”2 However, this faux liberalism that we are now forced to suffer rejects that principle for a dominating statist totalitarianism that rationalizes arguments from force; whereupon institutions that have not been co-opted are stripped of their integrity and independence and forced to subserve various expressions of depravity or face the punishment of ill-wrought laws that forbid the practice of freedom. Over time our memory of and affection for a vigorous participatory liberty of individuals through mediating institutions and voluntary associations, joined in society by a common life, and habituated to self-governance by practical experience has, as a result, grown faint and unappreciated, even loathed. In précis, the habits of liberty have been undermined, its duties seized, and wisdom is a fugitive; any vague recollection of freedom from the relativistic progressive state is now held entirely out of context; moreover, traduced to be something like a discredited impolitic myth.

     The venerable institution of Law, including the Constitution, and its appended First Amendment protections of speech, press, petition, religion, and perhaps even assembly; the Second Amendment right to bear arms in defense of life and property3; the admittedly defunct Fourth Amendment and its protection from arbitrary government invasion (obviously a freedom from arbitrary power, not a right to privacy that like democracy the Constitution never mentions, nor contemplates invading state’s rights so to “pass” a right to homosexual marriage); the Fifth Amendments Life, Liberty, and Property clause conjoined with due process; the Sixth Amendments procedural requirements; the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment; the démodé Tenth Amendments required justification for national authority; and family, religious, social, political, and professional associations are all subject to the dismantling—including their own—of a civilized order that represented the experience of millennia; including a cohering and just freedom for strong independent institutions to call government to account for its actions (a common good) in order to protect the “good” of depraved government functionaries, et al, (staying out of jail, et cetera) or be punished by the disuniting and unjust law of these arbitrary rulers; again, an argument from force—argumentum ad baculum.

     Also, the so inclined citizen—perhaps a non-citizen as well—can now according to law, despite all remonstrations, sans gene, arbitrarily take physical possession or enslave citizens of certain occupations and trot them about like a puppy on a leash, demand their advocacy and obedience, their presence here and here on certain days at certain times. No liberal descent here.4 No natural rights. This is egalitarian despotism that negates liberty by law. These are not captious denunciations but reminders of fact. History’s friends of liberty would be appalled at freedom’s acquiescence to this terror, this “tyranny of a licentious, ferocious, and savage multitude, without laws, manners, or morals, and which so far from respecting the general sense of mankind, insolently endeavors to alter all the principles and opinions, which have hitherto guided and contained the world, and to force them into a conformity to their views and actions.” 5 We should be too. Totalitarian socialists offer no panegyric of ordered liberty but rather a eulogy for the destruction of its American apotheosis.

.       .       .

Aristotle tells us that “the pupil who has…been trained in ‘ordinate affections’ or ‘just sentiments’ will easily find the first principles in Ethics; but to the corrupt man they will never be visible at all….”6 So “the mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive,”7 the massacre of persons of varying sects and differing faiths, and a man put in a cage and set on fire are reduced to an inhuman opportunity to misrepresent and prostitute history in order to attack and cast aspersions on the honorable, furthering a sick agenda of distortion and hate. Things have changed, but this is not ipso facto progress.

     If we are to progress we must have a set point, an objective good to which we direct our actions.8 But for the rulers, good and true are moving targets, something to be manipulated or changed as they judge it necessary. In their view “justice or right is simply what is in the interest of the stronger party,”9 it is something to be contrived and inculcated; hence the ruled are conditioned to blindly accept the values, opinions and attitudes that those few in charge of society find useful. The practical reason or the judgment of good and evil10 that apprehended objective truths as descriptions of facts must be discredited in order to create a more tractable society (the last thing a conditioner wants to talk about is right and wrong). And so it has been. Virulent philosophies and arguments that deny objective reality and replace it with a flimsy reflection of misguided sentiment, or opinion, or collective preference have been used to attack the judgments of practical reason that up to “modern times no thinker of the first rank ever doubted...were rational judgments or that what they discovered was objective. It was taken for granted that in temptation passion was opposed not to some sentiment but to reason.” 11

     From this fallacious fount of dominating exploitation comes a blithering excuse for somehow attempting to justify atrocities while at the same time ignoring them. This relativistic attempt to blame the innocent and ignore the guilty or the truth is a totalitarian socialist motif that fills history’s pages and is, in part, splendidly revealed in the Swartos family’s troubles, of which a multitude of institutions are cognizant. Yet despite the semi-public nature of this ongoing criminal enterprise—that is supposedly given force by law but may in fact expose government leaders to charges under RICO—courageous, principled impetrations to address our grievances are stolidly ignored by totalitarian thugs whose reason unsupported by magnanimity (the noble sentiments) is consequently subject to the visceral passions. Therefore they follow the path of Plato’s cattle: profaning the just, the good and the true, ignoring prudence, and copulating. The beautiful ordo amoris now stands condemned by those with the ethics of farm animals.

     This makes way for the liberty of solo hedonists, and the nihilists who make sure nothing gets in their way, who feel really good about their “right” to break society to the yoke of permissiveness and run amok over everybody’s sensibilities; and, contradictory as it is, they’re united in the emotional frenzy of societal chaos with the “let’s make an insatiable monster of an irrational equality” bunch who love to cut everybody down to size (heads will roll). They might put it like this: “We are dashing progressives all, gender neutral, values neutral (except for our own), and intellectually in neutral, at best. We are relativistic mavens of intellectual muck that believe equally in nothing or everything, or sometimes just a dab of this or that, because there are no objective standards, there are only subjective sentiments flapping in the winds of change. Truth, after all, is not an accurate (or as accurate as can be) understanding of an objective reality12 but whatever we say it is, or is not. What do we stand for? It’s confusing, we aren’t always sure, “good” is held in sway by change. Anyway, without approval it would be nonconformist to declare such a thought. Maybe that’s it political correctness, conformity; conformity for individual happiness, or maybe that should be subjugation for happiness, that’s the ticket, feels right, it must be true. Probably, maybe, you know it’s all so confusing. But just you wait and see when we figure it out everybody will fall in line and we’ll call it progress.

     “Things change, that’s progress.” But what is progress? “We don’t know.” Where is progress going? “We don’t know—whoops, let’s call it change. Change is change. Easy deal, we’re going to change what we please into what we like. That’s change we can believe in.” But is this good or true? “We’re relativists, it’s good for us. Besides good just makes us uncomfortable,13 it reminds us we don’t measure up, and truth? Well, if something were true we might have to act on it,14 that might not feel so good. Of course, now, we’re chasing our tails, but the reason that was once accepted, without positivistic credentials, as describing the merits of objects just doesn’t get us where we want to go. That good and true stuff’s just not for us. So don’t let those dreaded old line liberals get started on their recognition of an objective anything much less start going on about an accompanying value. That would leave us open to all sorts of claims of right and wrong, and good and evil, and those imperatives, and oh eek! There’s a thought that’ll stir up a conditioner, have him breathing fire right up our…. Well you know. Conform or burn is the new dogma.

     “But have we got a deal for you! We are going to cool those conservative’s jets. Step right up and rejoice brothers and sisters, utopia will bear an end of History and bliss will fill our souls till the stars grow dim; society’s going to manage your life, take responsibility for you somebody will pay your way—we’ll make them. The new socialism’s going to save everybody a bunch of worries. No more of that striving, piddle to your hearts delight, put your ambitions aside, give your manly muscles a rest and feast on the cooling body of enterprise. Property rights? No problem, there’s plenty to go around, and you’ve got a job if you want it (maybe). But if you don’t, well, the check’s in the mail. Society will pass the hat to a big fat confiscatory government that’ll make everybody pay.

     “Used to be we had a whole government. ‘Two balanced powers: Congress and the Executive, states and central government, with the judiciary as umpire.’15 But that didn’t get us where we wanted to go either, too many checks and balances, we couldn’t quite get a grip on absolute power. Now it’s true that some folks have questioned our patriotism but we love our country. Nevertheless, like totalitarian socialists the world over (and BIG MEDIA), we have no love for the American form of government, so we’d love to change it to our way of thinking (foreign powers take heart, Bill and Hillary are in your camp and they’ll jump in your bed if you can pay for their ‘services’). Like the niggling lover who always finds something to ‘fix’ in his beloved we can be fickle—it’s the relativist in us. So the fix is in, no more messing around with the law and the Constitution, unless we can call a convention. Instead we have the puffed up executive who gets a little help from the “new and improved” legislative court that forces their pet political conclusions on us. Confused about the rules? He’s got all the answers, just ask him. They change a lot so don’t be bashful. Otherwise one of those surprise laws might surprise you. It’s really simple though just ask him what you can do. That’s a short list; a really short list. Yeah, things have changed around here.

     “But just hold on, everything’s coming frantically undone, it’s frightfully perturbing. If only we could believe in a Wormwood 16 when we really need one, (the creepy little sub-devil would probably be out luxuriating in someone’s agony, anyway), but one of our conditioners will reassure us shortly, they have to, we’re entitled, to hell with using the practical reason G-d gave us and don’t repeat that name it was an accident, please don’t tell: a lot of work went into erasing Christmas from Christmas, and from a bunch of “them,” eek! It’s up to us to do away with this theistic mumbo jumbo; and those Judeo-Christian ethics? They have got to be kidding. Can you imagine Daniel or Queen Esther or the Apostles putting anything other than their well-being first on pain of death? They had entirely forgotten about themselves and that is nonsense, it has the ring of honor, or duty, or fidelity, even faith, hope, and love—anyway, it sounds like virtue and that can’t be right. Yet in spite of our opinion of what’s right (always look out for number one, that’s our attitude) this Christianity that’s been compared to a good infection 17 has caught on (yowling’s and howling’s are heard from below). But we mustn’t stir up their powers of reason, so don’t panic, let them fall back on those views that make them part of the crowd, let them fit in and feel the satisfaction of their “cosmopolitan sophistication,” let them believe they’ve been told all the answers and if all else fails, remind them of the necessity of their precarious place in society; their jobs, their bills, the terrors that can hurt them and those they care about. But gently, we really want them to believe these are their ideas, the product of their reasoning, and we don’t want to stir up questions. They might test what we say against virtue and that aroused intelligence might discover some good solid objective truths like the admonition in Proverbs to, ‘Start children off on the way they should go and even when they are old they will not turn from it.’ 18 Can you believe the gall? Children belong to the state; it’s the states job to tell them what to think and how to live and the sooner the better. Let them suckle at their mother’s breast, after that they’re ours. But we don’t want anybody pondering the wisdom of any of this, so don’t raise a fuss. Stay calm. They’re in “Progressive Land,” and a long way from any ideas of ordinate affections or just sentiments.

       “We’ve progressed, if you can’t measure it or deduce it it’s not so, everybody knows that; we’re just hunks of time bound material and our thoughts are nothing but the epiphenomena of physical processes. So patience kindred souls, we’ll put a smile on our efforts, and assure everyone it’s all for the best—our best, that is. Just be patient and tempt them with vague thoughts of “fairness,” that’s a bait they’ll bite on, and like the rotten seeds of equality, properly tended and nourished with a grand sense of entitlement, will produce a fabulous crop of ingratitude. We can then play off that (and our other devilish undertakings) to advance a tumultuous discord that will have people pleading with government to make them happy. The more government gives the more power over society it gets. That is Progressive political strategy, that and infiltrating all possible institutions necessary to maintaining our heavy handed influence. A few fibs, or so, about efficacy and intent won’t hurt either just don’t get pinned down over veracity—don’t get caught. Otherwise, next thing you know they might, rightly, suspect ulterior motives and start asking questions looking for the truth (eek) and come to some life altering conclusions such as we’ve our own agenda and these efforts we disguise as wholesome are just one big fancy we happen to like for our own despotic reasons. (Snap to Whiffet’s, Freedom’s in chains and you’ll like it, or else.) Then they might start wondering how it is that science is represented in the media as incompatible with faith, yet so many persons involved in science believe Christianity to be true, then they might follow reason to science and start asking all sorts of questions about its support of religion. Science can’t tell you what’s good but all the complexity, all those billions of years of accretions and happenstance, the cosmos, from an unimaginable eternal infinite void right down to the very cells of our being, is either a laughably improbable19 series of blind accidents created by anonymous laws of a provenance unknown and filled with innumerable coincidences fitted together in unbelievable, most often, necessarily, simultaneous perfection or…. It makes you wonder, and we can’t have that.

       “The conditioners will be along shortly, breath slow, hold your ground they won’t leave us—not a chance. They’ll set our thinking strait and free us from all those silly traditional ways; that awful, orienting, objective value stuff; inform us of the approved attitude, bring peace or maybe a pipe and guide us; perhaps they’ll lead us in meditation, we can empty our minds. Surely they will approve.”

        

Virtue comes of practice. Right actions educated in just sentiments can turn into habits that form character disposed to act justly or morally. This may produce a person that embodies the happiness of life lived with techne 20 or, in this context, the skill of living rightly and well as an individual in community. But by refusing to recognize a truth beyond what can be “proven” and scoffing at virtue hedonists and nihilists have replaced skilled living in equal freedom with a free-for-all happiness that recognizes no standards except those mandated by their own willful egoistic authority—an authority they are quite certain the rest of us should live under. Thus an uneducated society, mistaking whimsical partiality—cut loose from an objective reality—for virtue, is swayed to and fro by flings of passion unguarded by practical reason; and Freedom becomes a truant permissiveness that calls for the tyranny of our rulers, beating us into submission with the laws they make, the legal realism they practice, and the scepter of an unlimited equality that has the effect of an uncontainable corrosive on any institution it inhabits. All of which is irrational and leads to nothing but a glorified intemperance, a superficial courage that collapses at the first test, the wisdom of cheats and liars, and justice disordered by the rebellion of its parts, hence prostituted by pimps to pimps.

.       .       .

“Well, my dear Adeimantus, what is the nature of tyranny? It’s obvious, I suppose, that it arises out of democracy.” 21  –Socrates/Plato

     Plato believed that an “excessive desire for liberty at the expense of everything else is what undermines democracy and leads to the demand for tyranny.”22 “What it all adds up to is this,…you find that the minds of the citizens become so sensitive that the least vestige of restraint is resented as intolerable, till finally…in their determination to have no master they disregard all laws, written or unwritten.” 23 This is analogous to the child who reared in permissiveness and consequently insensible of others obnoxiously clamors for his way and declaims himself to be the parent’s equal and more, exemplifying an intolerance that can grow into a vicious inability to appreciate or tolerate the wisdom of delimiting human limits. “So from an extreme of liberty one is likely to get, in the individual and in society, a reaction to an extreme of subjection. And if that is so, we should expect tyranny to result from democracy, the most savage subjection from an excess of liberty” 24

       At this point the reader may point out the difference between direct and delegated democracy, yet no matter the contradistinction Plato’s symptoms of discontent correspond to todays. In this event the fault lays not so much in architectural differences but rather the corruption of principle.

       Furthermore, C.S. Lewis, regarding Rousseau’s “perfect democracy” where “only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed—though he didn’t know it—whatever the government tells him to do,”25 suggests that, “Hidden in the heart of striving for liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom.”26 This is apparent, not only in the French revolution, but in today’s drive for conformity that political correctness requires and, correlative, the general move from self-rule to an obviating management by a neo-natural aristocracy, the ruthless nihilist elite who can bring their political guns to bear on any resistance.

       Depravities such as these require the analogue of amorphous ethical restraint turned tyranny to be taken to the next logical step of innovator in “truth,” the propaganda or excuses for the harmful, intolerant, frequently bestial behavior that conditions us to accept this newly created delusional reality which is no representation of freedom at all but rather a specious trap, an alluring but deadly mirage that conceals chaos littered with excuses wherein we will pass our days as artifacts. Having thus freed themselves of magnanimity to satisfy their egoistic lusts, such protean leader’s become criminal usurpers disguised by a simulacrum of virtue—tyrants—and ethics having been replaced by self-interest  exploit rather than govern, e.g., they  accord undue advantage to certain of those in the marketplace; special interests representing special people are secretly aided in forming society to a mutually advantageous political vision; and the justice system, spurning justitia omnibus, defers to the argot of “affluenza” while perpetrating injustice on the defenseless creating les miserable. Let us give the father of our country the last word here: “arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.”27  –George Washington

     “Classical liberals,” many of whom recognized objective value in the universe and thus ethics as a converse guide to the best freedom and the good life, “considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential,”28 acknowledging the human limits of our nature, of reason, and of government; whereas our rulers of limited understanding have created a totalitarian government, monstrous and beyond reason, that leaves them unaccountable “to any law and institution, belief and custom, moral norm and precept”; therefore unimpeded in invading our lives and controlling “every facet of human existence, from outward conduct to the innermost workings of conscience and belief.”29 As a vehicle for their nihilism they have “hijacked the concepts of class and class consciousness and the strivings for social justice”30 or equality, and the negative rights of liberty in order to, inter alia, beguile society by means of a logically inconsistent “Perfect Liberty (principled and abstract)” that “inspires moral fervor” but fails to “bear…the weight of real human experience nor the burden of compromise.”31 By applying the solvent intervention of the state to the incumbent institutional authority to govern ourselves and denying the validity of ethical restraint this utopian or idealistic liberty perforce reduces community standards (and by extension the entire society’s) to a pathetic shambles overshadowed by the tyranny of a monolithic national state ensconced by a gloss of factitious freedom and populated with uncertain, atomized individuals that, having been schooled in learned helplessness, and graduated in political hebetude can be more easily managed or controlled (divide, confuse, and conquer). And the perverted principle of freedom to be made equal, having displaced equal freedom and the logical consequence to be treated equally, requires individuals become passive wards of the state to be remade at its discretion; consequently, necessitates discrimination against individuals and ergo government intervention to monitor compliance; wherefore, human dignity and the freedom to self-govern in community and individually is swallowed up in the courts and bureaucracies of a wholly centralized, utterly dominating, and distant national government that manipulates its citizens behavior by remote control. Institutional counterpoise and a congruent federalism are nearly extinct.

     In this post-modernist age truth, it seems, is malleable even fluid, the better to be molded and guided according to the ruler’s preferences. In the spirit of deceit and the need to control, the objective is thus met with “radical skepticism, relativism, and subjectivism that denies not this or that truth but the very idea of truth—that denies even the ideal of truth, truth as something to aspire to even if it can never be fully attained.”32 Reality is not to be approximated, thus gaining truth, but socially constructed through the proper “education.” A conflation of demagoguery, propaganda, social science, and technology, leavened throughout with unreasoning hate and mated with the arrant force of government dictates, thus gaining compliance over liberty. Progressive curriculum does not encourage the student’s interaction with wisdom or truth. The concepts of an objective truth and coherent arguments have been forced aside. Intellectual honor is a memory, discarded long ago as moral.

.       .       .

Totalitarian socialists of the supra caste “employ the rhetoric of ‘rights’ incessantly, not only to delegitimate [sic] the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic.”33 This has worked nicely in what is passed off as a debate on the “right” of homosexual marriage, a right and a relationship that, not so oddly, has never before in history been known to exist. The so called debate has passed by unheard of and we are left with journalism, the movies, television (see the posed pictures, everybody’s smiling, must be normal), the courts, and schools in which bald assertions of rights are made, and perceptions are relentlessly promoted but questions directed to their validity go unanswered. Hence, we are instructed, “it’s all good” and “normal,” they will “love” whom they want to,34 the courts are going to declare their unions “constitutional,” and government with the judiciary’s help is going to make you like it, or else. Failing that the beatings will continue. So remember when you get confused and refer to the guy or gal pretending to be the other gender as the gender they are disclaiming, just say you’re sorry, really, really sorry, or else you will be. (Sorry reality just slipped away and left us mastered by a bunch of people who are happy to pass laws that will tie society in knots and hurt us.) But above all just pretend, really, really pretend. When homosexuals make children into a commodity, perhaps even redefining them genetically, whatever you do don’t hesitate, don’t ask questions, just affirm it, someone’s got to pay the price for making those pretend marriages “normal,” or else, and, after all, what’s wrong with transcending humanity? They were never human anyway.35 So just mouth those words of assent and think happy thoughts and pretty soon you will find yourself to be one of the integrated, just folks, as good as everybody else, a regular democrat.36 Of course you may suffer the occasional discomfort of feeling trapped in an intellectual midden by your assent, having been led down the path of progressive affirmation, trying to be a good guy, until one day you find yourself agreeing to the patently absurd (for the umpteenth time) and you wonder what happened? You might even start thinking you would like to backtrack, to contradict the glaring fallacies, think for yourself, but you never mind, it’ll pass. Wiggle as you will big boy you’re on the hook, everybody’s doing it, there’s no going back, and you’ll be happier for it.37 Perception is reality now (see the pictures), so be a good citizen—resistance is futile—ask no questions, harbor no doubts, just repeat after your conditioners: “it’s all good,” and “normal,” and it’s a gay “right,” or else.

     The world must have been stuffed into Plato’s cave when we weren’t looking, the truth is long gone and we're stuck in the dark with some crummy fictions: Those guys in the gay pride parades and on the sidewalks of America’s cities imitating sex acts for children to see call that speech, and their erstwhile marching buddies, the ones who want to make raping little kids normative; those who take advantage of “pro homosexual education in public schools…to recruit the young into gay activities”;38 the gays who want to declare open season on kids because, they say, they’re not human anyway and have no right to refuse to have sex with anybody; and the homosexuals who complain they just have to have sex with kids because “it’s so central to who they really are,” really want to rape our children! And everybody’s proud of that! Soon they’ll be telling us that selfishness is a virtue and we’re infinitely perfectible and recognition of gays being “three times more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles” is irrational.39 And how do we know these guys aren’t out making their dreams come true? The media never says a thing about this stuff and the police aren’t doing anything without permission, sometimes, even orders and direction, from terrorists (which they apparently got when they recently strip searched a presumably innocent foreign diplomat).  Are the big bosses gay? Do those proud men want to rape me too? Maybe they want to buy me, but I’m not gay, but maybe that’s part of the sales pitch, maybe it’s not about sex, maybe it’s just a psychopathic thrill. The world’s gone sideways.

     There are rumors, rumors of an American genocide, an ideological cleansing perhaps, but our upstanding government wouldn’t scamper meekly after a principle of criminal homicide, they wouldn’t allow the murder of innocent people, often just for the fun of it. Certainly the sale of humans, even transnational sales, wouldn’t be tolerated, would it? Nor would they allow the pimps that inhabit so many of our institutions to determine people’s attitudes and choices, or would they? But—well—wait a minute, maybe we should think again.  Human beings make good currency, they’re spendable, and for some people practicing the violent destruction of an individual is a good time, it can be positively exhilarating to take a person by the hand and progressively tear their mind apart, reel them in one progressive affirmation, one humiliating act after another, turn them into a blubbering blob while their soul quietly screams for a redemption that never comes and ends in a hellish sanctification to obscenity that will require them to accept, with not the slightest whimper of conscience their debauchment, because of course that moral sense no longer exists, the human has been extinguished as it must be for the training to be successful. Need someone to put on a sex show with your dog? Call now for great rates! Freedom anyone?

     In spite of all the posturing when it comes to courage our great leaders, like their avoirdupois, are squishy (no bare chested promenading, please). Solipsistic snots plotting their dolce vita’s rather than the nations success is more like it; running around with their hands out telling people what they want to hear and occasionally trying to remember who they’ve sold themselves to and how many children that comes to is plausible. You start to believe all those people in government celebrating “pride” are just a bunch of sex crazed weirdo’s who covet our attention and pretend to be human. Judging by the debt raping the nation seems to be their style; rape as a leisure activity may not be that far off. There are rumors. One begins to think darkened caves suit them.

     It is now possible to go strolling through a library and see sex acts performed without a cover charge, not because you want to but because people who breath shallowly are glued to computer screens that are in public view, or you may run into graphic pornography at the printer, some febrile fellow having forgotten it in his haste to exercise his “right to privacy.” This is the world of radical individual liberty that insists on personal gratification without restraint irrespective of the consequences for others, and is supported by an equally radical egalitarianism that will not tolerate any notion of superiority in moral views—it’s all good or else. In spite of contradicting human edification and flourishing it has therefore been said on at least one major network by one prominent Libertarian—self-described—news reader (both shall remain anonymous) that prostitution and drugs should all be on the market. Very well then, but before that unsubstantiated proposition is further endorsed, contrary as it is to the humane, some research is in order. This would be best done by the advocate since people of sound mind would find the activity nauseating. First, you must exclude yourself from the marketplace of legitimate employment and satiate yourself with drugs; this will be necessary for the rest of the research. Then go out and practice what you preach, find yourself a nice street corner or go to some parties and get yourself passed around like a party favor; either way, line those men up and have a gay old time. Now, if you object that you are not gay that’s irrelevant, sometimes those frisky guys and gals find that quite arousing (the customer’s always right) and remember a woman is not normally inclined to this activity either, it will, in fact, devastate her psychologically. But after all, a penis in the act is rather anonymous so close your eyes and follow the example you would have others set you fearless advocate; assume the teleological position of everybody else’s happiness; get used to it while you observe the self-medicated demise of your assumed humanity. (Not to fear, cash is the new dope and you’ll be loaded, just be sure to show up. Enjoy your addiction.)

     Then comes the evaluation, and perhaps your family if they haven’t already declined your affections might help you with this, you could tell them about your experiences, your children might even want to bring you to career day, you could show them the video’s on the internet demonstrate technique, ask for feedback. It could prove interesting, you might be inspired to move to Amsterdam, grab a window and set up shop, make it a family business. Then you could reevaluate.40 Finem respice

     The advent of homosexuals as a political force anchored in homicide and anonymity has resulted in the infiltration of society at every level in petto and suggests a clandestine intelligence network coordinating throughout society to accomplish their ends. The effect has been, congruent with totalitarian socialism, to overwhelm and strike fear in the society, delivering America to irrationality and controverting truth. In consequence, Freedom now means the individual can subvert the institutional authority to set standards, overrule the community welfare and pursue boundless pleasure strictly at their discretion. Equality means the ever growing government and its despots will manage our lives and tell us how to live, and what to believe. In this way we shall be free—to do and believe as we are told. Incoherence has been successfully enshrined as a civic god of compliance.

     Moreover, despite institutional assertions of normalcy, anatomy and biology make it clear our bodies were intended to function heterosexually, that otherwise something went wrong. Homosexual couplings contradict that intent and are, therefore, a deviation from the anatomical and biological design. And throughout recorded time marriage has been defined as a union of the two genders. The homosexual union includes only one gender and thus is a separate thing that can never be other than sterile. To compare them then is a false equivalency, an intentional fallacy. Consequently, any failure to shun the truth and support the politically correct is denounced by those of a totalitarian nature as utterly hateful, certainly immoral, and always irrational. Epithet laden assertions to the contrary are the essence of their invective against any argument positing an objective fact that contradicts their vacuous propositions. Hence, declaring moral superiority, spewing vitriol, and reducing their targets to obloquy, they pave the way for misinformation and wild claims to be forced on society as dogma in order to gain acceptance for their false premises—argumentum ad hominem. None of which has anything to do with rationality or truth.

     The western standards and beliefs that have successfully guided us as a nation and a people—we daresay to greatness—are incessantly distorted and demeaned by the left in order to interlard their “politically correct” opinions and views. Society is now faced with the task of overcoming the resulting obliquity. No truth has gone unsullied by their intellectual filth. History, literature, art, philosophy including ethics, religion, law, our political heritage and even science are being disparaged and recast according to their political designs. Accordingly, a post-modernist denial of the “immutability of meaning” 41 seems to have overcome the “plain sense and intention” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights while the federal government’s designs to “enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter” 42 move forward unimpeded. Totalitarians thus deny history’s lessons of freedom of religion and conscience and build that punitive wall of neo-separation forbidding adherents of faith the liberty to act on it: that goes for any faith, but because the Judeo-Christian ethical influence is an integral part of the western civilization they seek to topple, especially the Christian faith.  The same approach is used with the Bible, they deny “the authority of the author over the critic or the reader in determining the substance and meaning of the text,” 43 they create their own version of truth, make it say what they want it to say, i.e., they play god. These things must be done if society is to be made amenable to their misbegotten politics.

     Thus those and other errant pretensions that should be exposed as false and harmful are encouraged. So while a decades long homosexual campaign of murder sometimes at the encouragement, tacit and otherwise, of key government officials is in bloody progress—and may have been exported to other countries by previous administrations—a fictitious image of reasonable compassion and love of diversity is erected for public relations purposes (they have pictures!), of course it is strictly taboo to point out that the justice system is often managed by organized crime, gay and otherwise, hence requires permission to operate and, indeed, is spoon fed by them on a regular basis. Perception will be reality, or else. Furthermore, instead of being safe from the politically correct our very smallest children are put within reach of governments corruption for acting like children, and we continue to terrorize the citizenry with picayune law’s that stigmatize and worse at the slightest infraction, make property conveniently forfeit, and fill our prisons to overflowing, keeping the justice system that thrives on suborned/perjured testimony in business. The need for redress is obvious and just as obviously ignored while through various cultural outlets, viz. media, state schools (they’re all state schools) and state churches (guided by state church bureaucracies), they simply keep repeating their falsehoods and excuses over and over. The messages are interwoven into the national fabric by rote and as time goes on, other voices having been silenced by law and terrors attendant science and technologies, becomes “truth”—argumentum ad ignorantiam.

     Mirabeau described Talleyrand (his friend) as a man who “would exchange his soul for a pile of dung, and he would be right to do so.” 44 Today’s political and judicial demimonde could make that trade and come out ahead. Many politicians have enlisted in opposition to legal safeguards when justice goes wrong for military personnel, vehemently voicing their opposition to the acquittal of the innocent by slandering commanding officer’s good judgment for rendering just aid to subordinates. In the stuffy little attics of their minds resides the screwy belief that an accusation must be taken as incontrovertible evidence of guilt in order to gain illegitimate political power to inflict the terror of law. So what they call justice results in the further politicization of society, the subversion of the justice system, and the tragic suffering of the innocent for a lifetime. This holds true, as well, in the civilian courts, on university campuses, and even for adolescents, which is perhaps no great wonder since their oneiric visions seem to include the guttering blood of infants as well. Youth and innocence are no protection from the wrath of the unjust.

.       .       .

Following the de rigueur attitudes of the fashionable in such matters as pertain to morality, culture and politics (matters that the court’s authority does not legitimately reach) the courts led by the Supreme Court have forced the radical credo of despotic social control on the nation. Hollingsworth v. Perry had its genesis in perfidious judges acting in their roles as despots enforcing a constituent radical egalitarianism when they annulled a legitimately passed amendment to the California state constitution. A sympathetic governor refused his duty to defend it, the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts declined to hear the case (the court majority claimed “the backers had no personal, or material interests at stake”) and voila, like magic the decision Justice Kennedy wrote in U.S. v. Windsor, in conjunction with the refusal to render a judgment in Hollingsworth, has given judges a clear line of fire to void state laws that restrict gay marriage—all the while screaming hateful, irrational, moral foul as the rationale, of course. The Supreme Court has connived to ostensibly grant states liberty knowing it will be voided by inferior judges. Judicial despotism has, in this way, overruled constitutional checks and balances.

     Since then judges across the country, as predicted,45 have used Justice Kennedy’s obiter dictum—not the Constitution—to remove these decisions from the States and subvert federalism. Some of the judges involved are presumably acting out of an intimate animus since they are gay and some of them find children sexually exciting; others, understanding the potential for drastic professional and personal consequences, are avoiding harm by compliance; and still others, heterosexual judges, male and female, comply for manifold nefarious rewards, which can include children. One wonders how many toddlers it might have taken to engineer all these coincidences.

     For someone who is supposed to adjudicate according to the law Justice Kennedy’s language reads more like rhetorical hysterics than constitutional jurisprudence. Justice Scalia’s response:

[T]he majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice with the “purpose”…“to disparage and to injure” same sex couples. It says that the motivation of DOMA was to “demean,”…; to “impose inequality,”…, to “impose a stigma,”…, to deny people equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,”…; and to “humiliat[e]” their children….But, Justice Scalia explains, “to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean or humiliate other constitutions….In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race. 46

    

     “And yet, all of this had been amply prefigured by Justice Kennedy’s notable opinion in Romer v. Evans, in 1995, when he wrote that any move in the law to cast an adverse moral judgment on the homosexual life ‘seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.’” 47 Any moral holding he disapproves of is now animus. His approach has not changed, he continues to denounce as hateful and irrational anyone who argues against him writes it into his opinion and deems it constitutional. He and his left wing comrades have knowingly subverted the separation of powers, amended the Constitution and given inferior judges the means to legislate, thereby successfully subverting political authority, delegitimizing the courts and the Constitution they purport to adhere to.

     Anthony Kennedy and his associates (including John Roberts and company) have, by silence and action, deliberately and flagitiously abused their authority, operating outside all law in order to punish dissent and achieve results they believed homosexuals could not gain through the political process. This is not a unique burden, it is equally borne by all participants in our political system. What the justices object to are the limits imposed on their power by the Constitution and contrary opinions held by the people at large that prevent homosexuals from rewriting reality; for those reasons and others, like so many other malcontents unhappy with constitutional authority, they ignore it. Theirs is an allegiance and a judgment founded in totalitarian sensibilities, and perhaps planning rather than the Constitution. This merits immediate impeachment.

     As the coincidences aligned so advantageously the question must be asked, was this event brought about by collusion between the parties? For that matter, one wonders why so many years ago the Senate rejected Robert Bork with such dishonest, savage vehemence and yet a short time before seemed to have embraced as a dear friend Mr. Scalia who had virtually the same voting record, was it a matter of constituencies? And, pray tell, why was the eventual nomination of Clarence Thomas met with such vile aspersions? Was this, again, a matter of constituencies? Further, was there collusion when Mr. Bork’s nomination was cast aside and Anthony Kennedy was eventually put up for confirmation, and was the nomination and he and his family’s consequent suffering simply window dressing in a theatre production? 48

     Homosexuals who want to come out are out and they can live fulfilling, productive lives with the same rights equally granted to all by the Constitution and its appended Bill of Rights. But they want more, they want a new reality, a pretense to which they would force us to adhere or suffer the punishing force of law—or worse. By the agency of a disingenuous judiciary homosexuals are coming to that end, coercing and deceiving the society into ignoring evidence of harm and approving a “moral stamp of legitimacy” for a sterile homosexual “marriage” that has no rational explanation and indeed contradicts the wisdom of the species. What possible argument can they make for unleashing all the power of government to force an entire population of sociopaths on vulnerable children? This is a group whose psychology precludes any but the most rudimentary emotional interaction with others, and especially with children, who, to homosexuals, are of absolutely no consequence (except as a commoditized prop for intentionally fallacious claims of being like heterosexuals, or a sexual adventure), and, at the same time, they demand control of those around them and will take strong measures to avoid losing it. A group whose members, lacking the capacity for pity and love, have never hesitated to bring women and children into their orbits, put them on display as evidence of normalcy, then their usefulness having come to an end callously ignore and leave them to suffer their abandonment—while still demanding and maintaining control—and at the same time spout vacuous claims of love undying for public consumption, which the media is all too happy to publicize, while ignoring the laments of children who grieve for their missing parent(s), resent being reduced to props so gays can claim normalcy, and find being exposed to homosexual practices ghastly (imagine coming home to find your parent or parents joined at the hips in an undulating line with a number of other men...undulating). Hence the public has no way of discerning the hidden heartaches of those so captured; their voices of grief seldom escape confinement and when they do the source of distress often goes unidentified by design. Image is everything and acting is the gay forte as evidenced by their success as thespians satisfying their driving psychological need to pretend to be people they are not—this may, at least in part, explain their desire to pretend marriage and parenthood.

     If society is forced to accept as licit being cudgeled by, would be, Benthamian magistrates into approving actions held to be contraindicated, limited, representative, self-government will have taken another step toward extinction, perhaps never again to be resurrected by conscience; and that same despotic power will have been legitimized to coerce our approval of other extrajudicial nullification's of societal standards favored by totalitarian socialists, perhaps even to declare further dissent actionable. That seems to be what Justice Kennedy and company are getting around to. (There is an incipient campaign afoot to normalize homosexual access to children for sex and our fearless leaders cannot be heard objecting.) Homosexual marriage demands the universe pretend its predicates concur with truth. The civilization that is seduced by such illusions, as ours has been, finds it progressively easier to yield to the further erosion of truth, as ours has.

     Furthermore, if an “adverse moral judgment” on the sexual activity of homosexual adolescents of a consenting age “seems inexplicable by anything but animus” what “rational reason” for prohibiting them from engaging in this activity with pederasts (not to mention heterosexuals who are even now highly valued by their elders), perhaps, even, to be rewarded in some way, can their parent’s offer that would satisfy Justice Kennedy and his disaffected sans-culottes? The institutional authority, cultural significance and measure of the historical family has shrunk to what can only be its end limits; thus parental authority is a meager, insignificant remnant subject to absolutist governments that have forcibly taken children from families, hidden and kept them incommunicado; jailed parents and stigmatized them for all manner of imagined wrongs, and endowed them ex nihilo with permanent criminal records that can annul their rights for life. And when all the participants are under the age of consent (e.g., ages 12-13) what authority can then intervene and set standards? Are children autonomous moral agents? If so, does that, in the courts mind, legitimize children’s brief interludes of friendly lavatory sex during school, or after school at home? Will the court invoke parens patriae if the parents object to this behavior? What if schools object? And when homosexuals who have acquired children on the market come out for sex anytime anywhere for children will the court require society to treat this as normal? Why not? Love—whatever that means—is the criterion by which these things are evaluated, is it not? Who can reasonably say no young love? (Warning for the perverted knave: That was a rhetorical question not to be construed as an excuse.) Or will society be allowed to define itself by the standard of what are believed to be objective facts? If not, with what will our good officers of the court replace them? Will they create their own moral code?  (Since reason alone cannot provide the premises necessary to enjoin ethical behavior philosophers are at a loss to provide such a thing. “And with this failure, the whole enterprise of secular humanism—the idea that man can define his humanity and shape the human future by reason and will alone—begins to lose its legitimacy….” Thus come’s the clerisy’s repudiation of “secular rationalism in favor of an intellectual and moral relativism and/or nihilism.”49) Or shall we address all familial conflicts to the courts case by case so judges can, like good conditioners who have cast off the objective standards of traditional morality and practical reason—leaving nothing but mere whim as a guide for their actions—simply tell us to do what they happen to like?

     If the Constitution says everything they claim it does these judges should just lay it all out for us. Show us just how many “rights” are lurking in the due process clauses other than a legitimate expectation of fair and consistent procedures, and the equal protection clause that instead of supporting the rights of citizens applied equally across the nation “constitutionalizes” the destruction of federalism and the tyranny of law. Put all the questions to rest, show us in our Great Charter how we should live, where progress ends. But of course the jig would then be up. They would be forced to admit the Constitution does not address everything the judge’s claim it does and, moreover, “reason cannot identify an end to progress,” nor, having been unmoored from the objective, can it “define progress along the way.”50 In sum, their jurisprudence is frequently guided by nothing more than the political winds; thus their fabulist adventures in post-modernist denials of truth is recognized for what it is, a usurpation, a tyranny, totalitarian despots acting as scheming opportunists, amending the Constitution of the United States to suit themselves and their narrow faction. The glory of the age, limited, accountable, representative self-government has been brought to its knees by judges robed in an authority that answers not to law but their faction’s arbitrary, self-indulgent “I want’s.” As a result, they need appropriate cases at appropriate times from which they can fabricate opinions and keep up the pretense, deeming all this “constitutional” and “progress.” If parental authority is challenged and the court follows its fraudulent logic they can only rule one way. 

.       .       .

“[S]ocialists take equality to be the ultimate social and political ideal. In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels maintain that the abolition of bourgeois property and bourgeois family structure is a necessary first requirement for building a society that accord’s with the political ideal of equality.” 51 This corresponds in nature to the radical egalitarianism of totalitarian socialists in this country and their corruption of a once vibrant social order that rightly understood property as being inseparable from liberty and the healthy family as an irreplaceable building block of a healthy society. This is no longer so and their resulting instigation of societal chaos has allowed them to consolidate powers and make dominate the views of people like themselves who hate what America stood for.

     Under the guise of liberalism that which is socialistic in its objects hence necessarily totalitarian in its nature has by the power of the lefts pullulated groups polluted the nation’s polity, politics, economy, culture, and character. This end has been abetted by an elitist media that, believing the lefts sectarian power to rule unchallenged is the ultimate value by which all others are to be evaluated, has set itself to be the overarching censor and global editor of information disseminated to the citizenry. They are a potentate of propaganda faithfully filtering and managing the information Americans receive (and making it up when need be, the Matthew Shepard myth stunningly exemplifies their nefarious ability to plainly lie); thus managing public opinion to make society amenable to their self-centered agenda of domination, hate, and intolerance. Accordingly, no great fuss was made when California, one of the Democratic Party champions of progressivism or totalitarian socialism, with “111 billionaires and the nation’s highest poverty rate (adjusted for cost of living),”52 tried to further erode the achievement principle with an attempted reinstatement of racial discrimination that would have denied large numbers of Asian student’s with superior qualifications access to the universities. (Even some Ivy League schools are allegedly doing this. These pinnacles of higher education, bastions of equality and individualism, uncompromising choice and diversity, grade inflation, and, for the most part, principles that change, seem to take the position that it is the weak against the strong and “if our kids cannot keep up with your kids we will not let your kids go to school with our kids,” thus we have the confused and withered Ivy League for youths who cannot quite cut it.) This should be alarming, these schools produce a large number of our leaders (such as Supreme Court justices), who seemingly lack, among others, a work ethic. Are we really destined to be led by the slothful and the second rate that rely on the authority of their elders to stave off superior students, and who may end up hiring those industrious Americans as prosthetics for their inadequacies? Someone will have to forgo their leisure and read a book. Lowered standards are an insidious fact that have reached with deleterious effects the entire society, including education; and even the Supreme Court membership criteria: if one is of the right religion, ethnic background, sexual proclivity or opinion the Senate will approve you, otherwise not, at least not without a fight. These were, in the minds of the politicos who judged them so viciously, surely to be the failings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Intellectual and ethical standards are not part of the requirements.

     Nor does the media draw our attention when progressives support spending policies that threaten our safety and prosperity with the certainty of an economic implosion that would have worldwide consequences; avaricious public employees and their Unions suck the economic lifeblood out of our communities (for the benefit of their relatively few members), and in the case of teachers and their Unions sometimes the life out of our children; when much of our information on climate change, having been derived from inadequate models, is inadequate for decision making; and despite science’s failures to ascertain the truth in the past and the protestations of many prominent scientists calls are made to unilaterally reduce emissions in such a way that would result in our economic suicide, (that is not to say that multilateral efforts should not be made to reduce emissions); 53 when the myth of a campus rape epidemic that trivializes rape is used as an excuse to gain power for both government and radical feminists, each of whom have made “victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges,” proliferates victims, 54 and coddles “students melodramatic oppression fantasies.” (“In the 1986 Ms. Survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.” 55)

     Furthermore, feminism “is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature.” 56 For such an endeavor they must have totalitarian control, when the truth interferes (and it always does) it must be censored in order to accommodate, for example, the radical, all encompassing, feminist doctrine of patriarchal conspiracy against women, the idea that all of reality is one big male plot to deprive women of their rightful place in the world. Hence they are not strangers to insanity and if you are a wandering male who seems vulnerable they may act to harm you, wherever you go. Just for fun; because they can. Or they may engage in a long-standing relationship and then claim rape when they become unhappy, this even works on Generals; or like the grifter in Texas, just say all the right words, get the money, and run (an unacknowledged cottage industry). And when time passes and no one is any longer buying what you are selling run for governor—this is feminist progress. (However, totalitarian socialist men and women, feminists and otherwise, make an exception for conservative women and children who can suffer all the assaults and gross indignities they and the smiling media can heap on them.) And those dreaded micro aggressions such as flirting, a casual compliment, or perhaps a glance now holds the possibility of engendering accusations of sexual impropriety that, whether they result in criminal convictions (or even charges), can ruin reputations and follow the accused for life.57

     Whether the subject is radical individualism/egalitarianism, the scope of campus sexual assault, the imaginary pay gap, lagging school test scores, a calamitous multiculturalism, anti-gun terrorists, terrorism perpetrated by radical animal rights groups, and many others such as covert homosexual rights terrorists, and feminist terrorists (many of whom are gay as well), the media and the left they support understand these subjects cannot bear the scrutiny of reason, nor in some cases the light of day. Thus they inundate the public with humbug. Understanding truth as a threat to the state’s imperious march to power media progressives beat it down or edit it out while portraying those of the left as oh-so-gaily beneficent and tolerant. Yet if that were true they would not have to hide from telling us why they and their homosexual terrorist allies harbor such militant enmity for India and cultures like it, and how those same homosexuals illegitimately appropriated United States government assets to deliberately engage in dastardly, malevolent and mortifying sectarian violence—a dirty war of terror—against that sovereign nation’s culture and appointed representative:

     Ahh, to be able to grasp from a distance by proxy of law a human and by eminence of government to eliminate all their hope, to reach out and force oneself on them, to humiliate, to terrify, to violate she who is at their mercy by putting their very hands on her in order to warm and firm their loins with her fearful trembling, secure in the knowledge this violation of, this chipping away at her soul is unstoppable by law, protected by the state, that they are utterly in control, they own her. This is pure joy tinctured sexual for these gay perpetrators. And that cringe of horror at this defilement that her sternest discipline cannot quite control? Well, wonderful they crow, this will be interpreted by their toady’s as resistance, as an excuse to force her to endure the further wretched touch of their filthy hands; hence the fear, the shame, the breaking anguish, Yes! That is pain they can live on even from a distance, puts a spring in a psychopath’s step, firms the phallus, sets a tingle those nether regions, and make’s life worth living! This is the totalitarian way. Stand up people and let everyone see what gay tolerance and your ballyhooed esteem for cultural diversity really look like.

     It is an outrage that these democrats should identify themselves as liberals, much less Americans. Their intellectual history, like that of their comrades throughout history, evidences no continuity of fidelity to liberalism, limited republican government, or devotion to this country as therefore constituted. Like good Marxists they progress to a power that abstracts and subsumes the individual into the state. That is not a power whereof individuals employ their freedom to define a good life for themselves, instead it is defined for them by totalitarianisms all powerful theocracy of repressive dogma. (Scary thought: Nothing changes. California is a state that enthusiastically supported eugenics and whose assembly once passed a bill outlawing the internal combustion engine.) It is an outrage that parents who have acted on our former cultures moral virtues of hard work, thrift, and sacrifice and the children who appreciated, respected, and honored that selflessness, and thus demonstrated their gratitude with sedulous academic effort and achievement should suffer at the hands of poseurs’ hostile to the investment of ethics in our citizens. (“They spend ten times as much time as non-Asian students do on organized non-school activities ranging from music lessons to tutoring to test-preparation courses.”)58 Universities exist to educate our best students; we have a duty to posterity and the nation to call the media and their accessories to account for their subversive actions and to learn from these parents example.

.       .       .

Totalitarian socialists and their handmaiden big media, which is to say those radicalize by savage lusts intent on trammeling our liberties and turning the citizenry into a sequacious herd that can be manipulated and deceived into tolerating corruption, have an agenda that addresses those interests. Their approach is evident in myriad ways.

     Business interests in perpetually cheap labor, politicians looking for votes, and unions looking for members have rendered immigration legislation meaningless and inflated our population with unassimilated, unskilled non-citizens that demand the benefits of citizenship without understanding the responsibilities. Many persons, including business persons who stand to benefit from corporate welfare, have bought into the idea that government should be the great equalizer in and provider of stuff, lots of stuff. As a result, national principles are again perverted and the welfare state for businesses and people who are not in material want grows like a blood swelled parasite and acts as a lure to foreign nationals who are. Also, Hillary and Wall Street have cuddled up perhaps fearing skepticism of an inefficacious Dodd-Frank would find that it fraudulently serves the purposes of the powerful that can absorb the cost of its onerous regulations while smaller concerns cannot. Hence the big get bigger and the smaller institutions get squeezed out—by the law—while the amelioration of risk to the financial system and national security (a common good) remains an unsubstantial product of someone’s imagination. Wall Street is holding a gun on the nation with the blessing of the Democratic Party, metaphorically of course. (At one time, Hillary said she might not announce her candidacy until summer (2015). Could it have been she feared a lack of donors for a lost cause? Oh, the questions, the missteps, the unbearable dilemma; but after all, at this point, what difference does it make?)

     Marijuana policy is always a good example of private and public sector scheming. State medical marijuana laws have proliferated, research has not and federal law still declares it a schedule one drug with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”59 Thus states and their leaders are in rebellion against federal law, openly advocating sometimes felonious behavior, and doctors favoring politics over law and science are participating when they prescribe the plants use despite federal law. None of this meets any test of ethics. At the same time, this drug that can produce any number of deleterious physiological effects, including cognitive impairment of teenagers and psychotic breaks has been in the name of freedom legalized by some states for “recreational” purposes. Yet, in the name of freedom, whether for medical or recreational use, users are not free to simply grow their own unrestricted, except for an obligatory admonition made legally binding by law to keep it out of the hands of children. It seems that state governments, perhaps in conjunction with silent partners who desire legitimacy, have created a business and are jealously guarding the tax revenue and profits no matter who gets hurt. All of these people are, of course, too big to prosecute.60

     The Supreme Court has passed down a decision on the straw purchase of guns. The court found the qualifying clause on the federal paperwork that prohibits purchases for another buyer licit, even though the original purchaser and the secondary recipient were legally eligible to own guns. But because the Court could not, they did not explain how that can be when the law in question, that supposedly supported the clause, did not prohibit such transactions. An unaccountable bureaucracy has once again imagined a law of its political liking and an unaccountable court, unhappy with the constitutional separation of powers, has created an imprimatur of legitimacy, constitutional even. (Abramski v. United States)

     Terrorism is a subject sure to raise the hackles on a politician’s neck as long as the risk of fighting it falls to others. Hence the maintenance of the volunteer military obviating the need to face those “supporters of our troops” who might otherwise find themselves required to address national interests personally, and answer uncomfortable questions as to why certain people, such as those in organized crime, were not called to serve in the past and how these people, in particular, were known to and came to have an agreement with government not to serve in the first place. It is much more convenient for government to dishonor its contracts and unilaterally prolong the commitments of our combat soldiers. After all, the brave office dwellers moan, they are a politically ineffectual constituency, whiffets socially unconnected to the reaches of power, and downright pesky people who don’t know their place, at that. It is a utilitarian argument from force v. the patriot’s defenselessness: government has won the battle. Political leaders of this character do not have the ethical fortitude to support a great nation but they find it useful that the few give patriotism and its inspiring sentiments repose in their lives.

     After they have completed their tours of duty, or when government gives them permission, the dutiful can come home and take their place in the local pens, in some cases to be picked off along with their wives and children by terrorists those brave office dwellers have no intention of warning them about nor defending them from—domestic and international—or they may fall to the V.A. while on a waiting list; while, at the same time, in return for their service, they will have been put on terrorist watch lists by the injudicious. And, always, they will be hounded by unaccountable forces to observe political correctness and conform, join the collective and be happy, or else. Welcome home.

     As for all the butchered and broken bodies strewn over the national landscape, well government never tells the public about them anyway. Taking away what individuals by their nature understand to be a natural right to defend their lives would be understood as further evidence of the monstrous trespasses against nature’s law (the law of right and wrong) of which government is capable. Nor does government speak of its documented history of  murder by its own hand—aided at times by prosecutorial discretion and at times by the corporate forces of organized crime—of presumably law abiding citizens, as if they were helots; nor admits its failed logic that claims we would be better off if guns were further restricted—making the innocent easier to kill—and consistently following their pattern of deception by omission, fail to admit the crime legal weapons deter and that criminals have illegitimate resources law abiding citizens do not, hence they will always have guns—which at present are the least of worries—and a host of other weapons no matter how many laws are passed. (Hint: criminals aren’t known for obeying laws.) “Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure those citizens cannot defend themselves.” 61

     No polity, people, or ethics can forever withstand the entropy of standards, principles, and morals that took place in the last century (and continues today) to the detriment of liberalism, our citizen’s prosperity and safety, limited government’s accountability, the rule of law, and of the other institutions that guarded much needed standards and traditions. The deceits and perversions of totalitarian socialism are immiscible with liberalism's apodictic truths, the political science so magnificently expounded in The Federalist, the natural rights eloquently set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the finely woven compromises that created the Constitution. They contradict, they injure, and they maliciously offend the sensibilities of ordered Liberty.

.       .       .

Flaunting a dullard’s self-assurance of infallibility totalitarians use unlimited government to force society and its institutions to give way to arbitrary power and conform to their predetermined image. To accomplish this subjugation there is nothing beyond sacrifice; wherefore, they vouchsafe our liberties, rights and principles in a “living constitution,” the meaning of which is subject to their demands for change and from which, as a result, they will wring many of their excuses for governing. The authority of government now depends not on “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”62 but in order to nullify any authority not their own the purposeful misrepresentation of liberalism, limited government, and, fundamentally, the United States of America and the Constitution.

     If these enfant terribles had bothered to consult history they would have discovered their betrayal of the United States and the consequences already played out in its annals, exposing them for the traitorous vermin that they are.63 History could have reminded them that our Constitution and the great nation it unites grew from the root of western civilization. That at a certain time and place the experience of the ages was brilliantly synthesized and a historical parturition begot a miracle not to be aborted at the whim of political apes.  History could have cautioned them with the example of the illustrious Athens that tragically demonstrated how an unlimited government became a tyrant that took Socrates life and ruined that city, and exhorted them that “government of the most numerous and most powerful class…requires…institutions that shall protect it against itself, and shall uphold the permanent reign of law against arbitrary revolutions of opinion.”64 But limited government, sturdy institutions inviolate, and ordered liberty are their bane; like the sanguinary Bolsheviks and Fascists totalitarian socialists seek the subjugation of a society atomized and made defenseless by, in this iteration, disguised violence. Like the murderous Jacobins their intent is the outright reshaping of both society and human nature…to be achieved by the obliteration of any opposition and redefining civic virtue as meeting the corrupted standards of the rulers. That is, doing whatever intellectual or physical violence is required by the “disinterested” elite to prop up their regime of fear and hate. 65 Typical statists, enchanted by their own authority and exaggerated self-importance, they have no allegiance to any Decalogue, political principle, or premise of natural law embodied in statute, Federalist, Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence. Their authority represents nothing but arbitrary desire and their desire is absolute authority. They have repudiated the rule of law, our political principles, and objective value judgments, among others, to work corruption on the understandings, dispositions, and institutions that gave birth to and have sustained our nation, founded on a blinkered lust for control and their willingness to foster tyranny’s allies and liberty’s enemies: want and ignorance, contraindicated interests, fear and hate.

.       .       .

“We all want progress. But progress,” Lewis reminds us, “means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”66

     For most of those of the Late-Enlightenment the progress of science held the promise of extending man’s dominion over nature. 67 By virtue of these advances it became intelligible and hence a rational order of the natural world, governed by predictable forces, might be governed to improve mankind’s future. These discoveries gave hope to the catechumens of Enlightenment that laws of nature governing man could be grounded in science by hypothesizing him in a state of nature, producing “generalizable laws” to which he must answer. 68 That which, in theory, defined the natural state of man would define his nature and governance, in theory. Pure Reason, unmediated by common sense, experience, or any supporting agency of the sentiments congruent with reality, and in spite of its oft time’s confusing claims in the affairs of man, was to be the infallible authority under which this was done. Reason was rational, but not necessarily reasonable. Man was to be a non-facultative material abstraction, destined for all of time to wander its paths according to a fixed pattern. The epiphenomena of mindless matter bumping into itself between man’s ears would with a roll of the cosmic dice produce a definitive understanding of a naturalistic reality. Reason’s authority would be established; progress to perfection would be inevitable, irrefutable, and irreversible; all would be well.

     This briefly describes a prominent aspect of the Enlightenment Liberalism of the day and Thomas Paine who was such a creature. But a cold-blooded reason unmixed with experience and undirected by prudence can make for the utmost folly. Paine, in typically facund fashion, attacked history as a mere record of “human failures to apply the proper principles to politics,” 69 and sans evidence deified individual reason—everyone could know the truth by individual effort, strictly by reason—then sought to impose that deity’s heterodoxy. 70 “In order to follow the dictates of reason we must put aside all the context and authority of the given world and pursue the abstract and universal truth directly.” This is the requirement of Enlightenment reason. 71 Then, in an anthropological revolt, he manically sought to justify revolution by advancing a baseless theory of pre-historical origins and postulating imagined facts from imagined circumstances to support it. He theorized that man was solitary, unencumbered by hierarchal and social differentiation; thus he had been born equal (never mind mom and dad, or their buddies) and a separate individual (ditto). From these beginnings, to support that manic devotion for revolution, he “discovered”—invented—natural society a transitional step from man’s isolated origins to formal governance, and to which, he argued, post-revolutionary man, now primordial man, could return for information to begin again, after the slaughter.72

     Nonetheless, that theory was swept away when the blood-raw specter of 1789 roiled the world with its madness and the peoples wept for the terrible consequences of ruthlessly imposing simplistic notions of rational control on a nation, while at the same time, according to the reason of the guillotine and gibbet, destroying all the conventions and institutions that shaped society. As it turned out, the complexities of society that was to have surrendered to man’s matured reason, and a few simple undefined abstract principles, befuddled the speculative adolescents of Enlightenment. Revolutionary rationalism had begotten, according to an approving Sieyes, “some unknown country to which the nation was transported…. Every effaceable trace and relic of national history was carefully wiped away.”73 The nation defined by history, however, simply ceased to exist; there was no ethical advance.

     For Thomas Paine a just society could only be produced by concatenating abstract principles under the head of reason, while subverting affections for custom, habit, the natural order of prescription and the guidance of beliefs long held and proven by experience (prejudice) that united individuals in society. He speculated this condition would lead to the rule of individual reason. But the history Paine rejected as a mere record of man’s failure to employ reason to understand his natural rights tells us it did not. History tells us he was right.

     By contrast, John Locke’s state of nature exemplifies objective values and so found the natural condition of men to be “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.”74 Which meant, for thinkers such as himself, “the Law of Human Nature or the Law of Right and Wrong.”75 “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…,”76 everyone was to be equally free as individuals, thus mutual equals to be treated as such according to an external standard we did not create but which we by our nature recognize and appeal to. This accord’s with the Law of Nature.

     But the Law of Human Nature, unlike the laws of science, is volitional. Whereas the laws discovered by science are predictable and operate without his assent, man can choose whether to obey his knowledge of right and wrong77; unless you believe reason is a determined result of a naturalistic nature man has a choice.

      

The, so called, progressive evolution of human political and economic institutions ending in liberal democracy and market driven economics might satisfy a Hegelian that the End of History had come. In other words, “inevitable” political evolution will have ended, and this is as good as it gets. But appearances can be mistaken for reality, so too change for progress. Liberalism and democracy may be the best man can do, theoretically, but they can be corrupted into empty forms and rituals devoid of substance, their principles listless banners for what was. The “inevitability of History” is easily misdirected by interests other than noble and can be just as easily unhinged by its radical contingencies.  Cumulative advances in knowledge produce change in circumstances but do not perforce lead to progress; that is progress in a vulgar sense, not necessarily in that of approaching something better. Moreover, to deny the possibility of improvement forecloses its consideration conforming reality to subjective beliefs, or mere opinions isolated from and, indeed, in denial of the exterior world.

       The idea that History has an inevitable course that will eventually pour us out into a standing political  puddle denies the possibility of possibilities; makes History ineluctable; gives it, ipse dixit, a will of its own; and makes the efforts of men and women, and the radical contingencies they sometimes produce irrelevant. That course of history would, furthermore, presuppose an end of man’s flawed nature, resulting in institutions beyond corruption. That opinion, however, contradicts experience.

       Regarding liberalism, many individuals believe the ideas it encompasses (e.g., equal liberty, mutual equality, the rule of law including property rights, and free enterprise) are good but “progress” is better. So they believe all those other ideas ought to be strictly subordinate and conduce toward an enforced despotic equality that enlists the law to bind men to progressives will. Equality thus comes to mean no one shall be allowed to deviate from the pattern progressives have drawn. At the same time, instead of being treated equally as human beings under law their superior understanding entitles them to be privileged, sovereign over all. Thus a powerful few believe the authority of the people to manage their own lives is misplaced and ought to be reassigned to them, of course. In this course of history Liberty becomes an impediment to progressive “good government.”

       For the sake of fidelity we must ask ourselves how much corruption the defining principles of liberalism can endure before they cease to exist. Do we support ordered liberty and reciprocal equality under just law, or not? Does the law, including the Constitution, provide a bulwark against those who would by force impose their will on our citizens and the society they comprise, or not? As for democracy, are we now content, that rather than society acting on itself, to allow ourselves to be managed by a few specialists in indoctrination, conditioners.

      A few brief examples will serve to illustrate in regard to the law. Over 5000 employees of a national bank were recently fired for fraudulent actions. There has been no word of any criminal prosecutions.  It is now commonplace for police agencies to fund themselves and local governments by the use of civil forfeiture laws that allow them to seize the property of citizens innocent by law. No evidence, no warrant, no arrest, no problem. Some jurisdictions even have devices whereby they can, for instance at a traffic stop, suck the cash off ones cards at their discretion. The law, if you will, requires only that someone imagine, despite the lack of evidence, that there has been a breach of law. What this proves, however, is that legislatures are quite capable of creating unjust laws. Not to mention unlawful laws such as those “legalizing” marijuana in spite of federal law: Article VI of the American Constitution is categorical, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”  So our national charter is routinely and obviously contravened, subverted, and its character eroded to the point that its effect is unrecognizable. States routinely legalize the production and sale of marijuana, and the federal IRS passively accepts taxes from these criminal enterprises.  Imminent domain is now a weapon turned on the defenseless in the interests of the powerful. And too often when an individual is deprived of their life by police force there is no trial to sort out the facts and the truth. Thus any story authorities enunciate in press-reports—which are what reporters are mostly writing from—cannot be held accountable to standards of evidence. Moreover, force now trumps discretion in the name of discrimination. Societal consensus born of individual discretion to separate ourselves for the sake of modesty and privacy by sex in society is now traduced perniciously discriminatory. Individuals who suffer distorted psychological perceptions and reject society’s customs are free willy-nilly to subvert them, instead of getting the help they need. This negates society’s institutions, habits, beliefs, associations and conventions, replacing them with powerless individuals directed by the centralized state; civil liberties are thus displaced by despotism and Freedom comes under the domination of power.

      

Today the country faces, at best, a relativistic ideology that, often as not, is a subterfuge for sic volo sic jubeo adorned with the pretended excuse of some fanciful reason, and is ruled by an ascendency of short winged birds (with sometimes fluffy pates) for whom the truth is not within reach; virtue has been perverted to satisfy their desire for pleasure and avoiding pain, at best. They might yearn for something better but, blinded by their wants and itches, do not know in what direction to flap. Driven to exasperation by their appetites they have given up on progress and instead accommodated directionless change aided by falsity to fulfil their selfish desires. But for those appetites the elements of their souls are withered away.

      For these and other reasons progressives have developed the habit of politicizing every thought and action: it’s all politics, all the time; so wants become rights and reality becomes twisted to suite the polemical passions of those with an itch they cannot quite scratch by themselves. Thus the tainted shadow of government tumescence clouds every aspect of our lives with the specter of its force, engulfing and drawing us in to be managed, petted and preened, mordioux! And when we further explore this untoward domestication, we find the gloom hides dissilient growths spewing further depravity, we might want to forgo any congratulations as to progress. Bad ideas have taken root, corrupting and consuming us.

      America's beginnings were characterized by opportunity and the independence that flowered in the wake of its cultural accessibility. Thus habits of liberty and entrepreneurship and a respect for property were anchored in experience; mutual participation, political and economic, and a reciprocal rule of law defined equality; voluntary associations and institutions took shape, the great independent authorities that guard liberty flourished in the knowledge that the character of the whole was a product of individual actions; thus individuals became communities. America was born.

       The false prophets of progressivism had not yet arisen to persuade the people of their need for government to invade and manage their lives. They worked, they built; a great nation arose. They did not know any better.

      

Moreover, history’s powerful minds did not foresee the American experiment, much less its success. For the United States are the result of a fortunate confluence of events, experience, culture (and lack of), opportunity, and religion that created a nation unlike any other, a nation that unleashed the dynamism of individuals mutually empowered by custom and law to participate economically and politically; equally at liberty to act for their betterment; and recognizing that their interests are affected by the surrounding environment—physical, political, intellectual and ethical—to engage in associations for its maintenance and improvement; thus infused with a moral understanding that brought a common ethical foundation to their deliberations.

Part two:

Epigraph:

Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 8/25/2014. http://oll.LibertyFund.org/titles/75

1.     Edmund Burke, Letter to a Noble Lord, (1795, 1796), Web, 7/7/2013.

2.     Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old: critical essays and reappraisals, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004. p. 203

3.     For the record, I do not own, carry, nor am in possession of any weapons, whatsoever. To do so would be to give the “authorities” an excuse to shoot me or, rather, murder me. Further, experience teaches us that when law enforcement makes an arrest and the arrestee is in possession of weapons, that becomes a separate charge in spite of the subject’s (once upon a time) presumed innocence. I prefer they not do any of that, and so have taken away that excuse. If at any time these shy authorities would like to talk to me, other than surreptitiously (remember the hefty fellow on the sidewalk near the University), that would be just dandy. Please feel free to call Lisa Bazant in Billings, who has, admittedly, dumped me as a client (I, alas belatedly, reciprocated by dumping her as my attorney), but nevertheless, she impressed me at our one and only meeting (except for one brief encounter in her office lobby surrounded by people coming and going), and may, if your sweating minions can remember their manners (I concede it is a long shot), and not soil her furniture (another long shot), deign to speak to you; consequently, may take an interest in this heretofore, technically, unknown case. If not, you may contact me and we will go from there. And wherever we go, rest assured, I, for my part, shall go very, very quietly (wouldn’t want a repeat of that Florida disaster nor the California tragedy). See you in court.

4.  Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old. Web, 6/22/2015. https://books.google.com, p.169. “‘A LIBERAL DESCENT’ is meant to encapsulate the essential principles of Whig history, the idea of liberty and the idea of continuity. The expression is [Edmund] Burke’s.” Moreover, the liberties of the English people, “were not only legitimized by the past; they were secured and extended by the same process of inheritance that brought them into the present.”

5.  Edmund Burke, An Appeal from the new to the Old Whigs, August 1791, Web, 3/1/2014

6. Eth. Nic. 1104 b. Taken from C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, Chapter 1. Web. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

7.  United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Committee on the Rights of the Child,      2/4/2015, p. 5.     i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/02/06/u.n..isis.children.report.pdf

8. C.S. Lewis. The Poison of Subjectivism. Web. https://www.calvin.edu/.../The-Poison-of-Subjectivism.doc

9.   Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. Second Edition, 2007. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., New York, N.Y. p. 18, 338c

10.    C.S. Lewis. The Poison of Subjectivism. Web.

11.   ibid.

12.  Jerry Root, C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Subjectivism. Knowing & Doing – C.S. Lewis Institute, Web, cslewisinstitute.org/Knowing_and_Doing.

13.  C.S. Lewis. Perelandra. The beginning of the thought came from this book, but the page number is lost to me. Read the book.

14.  C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. Simon& Schuster. 1996. I don’t have the page number. Read the book.

15.  Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787. Hachette Book Group. New York, N.Y. p. 213

16.   C.S. Lewis. The Screwtape Letters. Zondervan a division of Harper Collins. New York, N.Y.

17.   C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity

18.   NIV, Proverbs 22:6 This verse is an admonition to not only instruct our children but to model what is taught, exemplifying the attitudes that support good habits.

19.     I say improbable because I do not understand how, by other than God’s hand, what to my understanding must be infinite space could have been created—what did it replace?—or how the infinite could be other than eternal. As for the odds of inorganic atoms forming living matter, hence all its necessary physiological processes simultaneously, by chance, seem, to this layman, mathematically remote to say the least. Take faith in blind evolution, you say?

Michael J. Behe in an address to the American Museum of Natural History, Blind Evolution or Intelligent Design, April 23, 2002, quotes from The Way of the Cell, published…by Oxford University Press and written by Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold, who wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biomechanical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Things like the eternal, and infinity, and irreducible complexity do make you wonder.

Yet science is not to be dismissed nor ignored because it challenges our beliefs. The age of the earth is a case in point. If it is as science tells us quite old, then we must reevaluate our understanding. To hold to the belief that it is relatively young, when it appears very old, would seem to contradict the character of its maker. (So too the groundless Deistic belief that the universe is the result of a deity that made it and everything in it, set it in motion and then, perhaps, became confused and just kind of wandered off. That would not be good. Further, deists, of the eighteenth century, anyway, believed a man’s heaven or hell were his creation (Drinker Bowen, page ???). Yet this would require one to ignore all recorded history, including the miserable lot of the slaves in this country.)

20.   The skilled practice of knowledge is the definition (given by Melissa Lane in her introduction to Desmond Lee’s, Plato, The Republic; see note 9). But the skill of virtuous living oft practiced is, out of habit so formed, manifested as almost second nature. Thus, for instance, if you were new to a neighborhood the unaffected practitioner of virtue might be found on your doorstep presenting you with a gift (pie’s always good) ready to drink copious amounts of coffee and chat (and eat pie?) because, of course, they were here to make an investment (themselves) in this world and to do that they must get to know their neighbors. Mature virtue lived springs from a heart shaped by appropriate affections. Virtue starts in the head, but takes root in the chest; and from there a good life is given bloom.

21.   Plato, The Republic, Trans. Desmond Lee. p. 320, 562a

22.   ibid., p. 321, 562c

23.   ibid., p. 322, 563d

24.   ibid., p. 323, 564a

25.     C.S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and other essays, Harcourt, Inc. (A Harvest Book), San Diego, New York, London. p. 59

26.     ibid., p. 59

27.    George Washington, Circular to the States, 1783, Web.

28.    Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gommorah: modern liberalism and American   Decline, ReganBooks, New York, N.Y. 1996. p. 150

29.   Robert P. George, Struggle against totalitarianism, Opinion Page, Missoulian, 9/11/2014 (Originally ran in the Philadelphia Enquirer.)

30.    ibid.

31.    Ted McAllister, The Institutions of American Liberty, Web, 4/21/2014. Online Library of Law and Liberty. www.libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/the-institutions-of-american-liberty

32.     Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old. p. 16

33.     Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gommorah. p. 150-1

34.    Homosexuals have trouble responding to people with “other feelings.” We ought to define this word love then test it against what they mean. Is their affection for the person or is that affection for the perceived control of the other person? Let’s ask the A.P.A. and the law enforcement personnel who are among the first responders to the bloody scenes of their interpersonal partings of the ways.

       Love in popular usage seems to mean a state of mind ordinate to action without limits, sometimes immediate, even spontaneous, and indiscriminate self-satisfaction—because it’s love—and in the interest of radical individualism must be considered impermanent in order to be a free or liberated individual, free to flee any obligation or duty at a whim. Is this that vaunted rugged individualism? While in the interest of radical egalitarianism all expressions of “love” must be considered as equal. Same sex, babies, toddlers, threesomes, foursomes, animals and dead bodies, street corners and toilets, it’s all good and normative now. So love is a glorified excuse infused with torrents of insanity.

       And don’t forget, we can’t discriminate, our Benthamian magistrates say so.

35.   Wednesday, August 17, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland the pedophile group B4U-ACT held a conference at which “Self-described ‘gay activist’ and speaker Jacob Breslow” suggested that “pedophiles needn’t gain consent from a child to have sex with ‘it’ any more than we need consent from a shoe to wear it.” This is consonant with Diane Feinstein’s “if you like your baby you can keep it,” philosophy. The child’s humanity or lack of is defined by desire, if the desire is to dispose of, or rape “it” then the child becomes meat. This will doubtless be heralded by those such as Harry Reid and Robert Mueller as the next step in avoiding the penalty of laws that prohibit—none successfully so far—their raping of very small children. After all they might reason, these little ones can have penises, vaginas, mouths, and anuses, and, because judges in Baal like wisdom have said they are not human, they could be sacrificed on the market’s altar, politicians could tax the trade, and some libertarians, for whom the market sanctifies all, could get out their loincloths and do a happy dance.  One might even drive up their market value by leaving them to struggle rather than terminate them on the birthing table. That is, if they are not human beings.

Now if someone were to object to this idea as disgusting, well then, very good. Your emotional response agrees with the practical reason that tells us these small ones have an objective value, that they have merit, they are good and that we ought to care for them. Townhall.com. Sexual Anarchy. Matt Barber. Web. 4/22/2014

36.    C.S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and other essays, Harcourt, Inc. p. 62

37.   The clauses in this sentence are fallacies some of which the media promotes to give the impression of overwhelming assent and ultimately to bring about the surrender of intellect and honor to appetite.

38.    Paul Gottfried, Jonah Goldberg: A Comfortable “Conservative” in the Belly of the Beast, 1/6/2011,Web.Takimag.com/article/jonah_goldberg_a_comfortable_conservative_in_the_belly_of_the_beast. 3/19/2014.

39.    ibid.

40.    The student of liberty should note that the freedom to prostitute oneself has never in history been exercised by those who could avoid it. Indeed, it is a “liberty” of the broken or hopeless, the deceived, the careless, or the naïve; and unfortunately societies have always abounded with men and women of evil intent who will avail themselves of these deficiencies and break the unguarded to their purposes. It is a form of slavery.

41.    Gertrude Himmelfarb, The New History and the Old. p. 16

42.    James Madison, Writings, Edited by Jack Rakove, New York, New York: Library of America, 1999. p. 589

43.    Gertrude Himmelfarb. The New History and the Old.      p. 16

44.    J.F. Bernard, Talleyrand A Biography, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. 1973. p. 13

45.    Hadley Arkes, The Court and Marriage: Anthony Kennedy’s Hate Speech, Right Reason: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, The Claremont Institute. Web, 11/27/2013.

46.    ibid.

47.    ibid.

48.   It would not be the first time perceptions were created to hide the truth. Bill and Hillary Clinton are two prominent examples of homosexual operatives who, in my opinion, believed that a child was required to make them appear normal, hence, electable. So they “married,” or more accurately, they struck a deal (with tax benefits?) and, for emotional reasons that can be traced to psychological reasons, reluctantly produced a child. We must always keep in mind that wonderful adage that guides so many individuals, “perception is reality,” especially in politics.

Deception is why, again, in my opinion, the Senate—and the media—went to such great lengths to ignore the obvious implications of Susan Rice assuming the duties of Hillary Clinton after the Benghazi debacle. And of the media’s refusal, except for the very rare exception, to so much as mentions Hillary’s name in the following days. A foreign observer might have never known there was such a person. This allowed Ms. Clinton to stumble into seclusion after the incident and avoid answering questions (perhaps thinking of “better days” when she could hoist the bloody underwear of a little kid as a banner of victory and keep the world safe for men who like to gang rape children). And when she finally came before the Senate they failed to require answers, allowing her to brush them off, as if they were so many gnats, with an irresponsible, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” One would have to be witless not to believe, based on this charade that allowed Ms. Clinton to avoid answering substantively, and the Senate milquetoasts obsequiously abetting the maneuver, that they are in cahoots. The United States government, including some Republicans, helped her evade prosecution.

49.    Irving Kristol, “The Cultural Revolution and the Capitalist Future,” Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (New York: The Free Press, 1995), pp. 132-3

50.    Harvey Mansfield, Our Parties, Part One, The Democrats: how progress became drift. City Journal, winter 2015. Web. 1/2015

51.    John Kekes, Conservatism. Donald M. Borchert, editor in chief, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition, MacMillan Reference USA, An imprint of Thomson Gale. Volume 9, p. 73

52.    George F. Will, Government for the strongest, December 5, 2014. Jewishworldreview.com

53.    Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Thursday, 13 December 2007 17:19. Science & Public Policy Institute. Scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html. 7/13/2014, 3:13pm.

Richard Lindzen, a man whose name, the mention of which is certain to elicit howls of grief from climate alarmists, and “a pioneering climate scientist with decades at Harvard and MIT,” points out since 1800 the climate has warmed “not much at all,” and he contends the alarmists vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. For instance, “since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the average global temperature has risen by, at most, 1 degree Celsius…. And while it’s true that sea levels have risen over the same period, it’s believed they’ve been doing so for roughly 20,000 years.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the fall of 2014 released its Summary for Policymakers in which it is predicted “that if emissions continue to rise, by the year 2100, global temperatures could increase as much as 5.5 degrees Celsius from current averages, while sea levels could rise by nearly a meter.” This is a climate demagogues dream come true. “But Lindzen rejects the dire predictions….” noting that “while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.”

“Lindzen also disputes the accuracy of the computer models…contend[ing] that they oversimplify the vast complexity of Earth’s climate…. The models also rely on what Lindzen calls fudge factors,” e.g., aerosols “effect on the climate—even whether they have an overall cooling or warming effect—is still a matter of debate.” “Lindzen charges that when actual temperatures fail to conform to the models predictions, climate scientists purposely overstate the cooling effect of aerosols to give the models the appearance of having been accurate.” A bit of science fiction.

       Lindzen asserts these hysterics are driven by the need for cash to fill the budgets of scientists who by their dependence make themselves, “essentially vassals of the state.” (Not an uncommon strategy for government to employ.) Thus, fear—the demagogue’s counterfeit reason—is cultivated in the manure of propaganda.

       The upshot is we have a mad rush to make the failure to conform to the accepted standard of the politically correct and accept their suspect models, thus their suspect claims, despite the science’s sometimes fraudulent claims, a social sin, a heretical flouting of alarmist dogma. And never mind the inevitable epochal ups and downs of earth’s periodic climate changes, minus human effects. This while effective multilateral efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been nonexistent and mention of (at least in big media) and funding for fusion technology is appallingly neglected. See: George Will, The fusion in our future, 12/21/13, Jewishworldreview.com, 7/15/14, Charles Krauthammer, The climate pact swindle. 11/21/14, Jewishworldreview.com, 11/24/14, and Ethan Epstein on Richard Lindzen, What Catastrophe. The Weekly Standard, January 13, 2014.

54. George F. Will, Colleges become victims of progressivism, 06/06/14, JewishWorldReview.com. 7/16/2014. 1:17pm.

55.    Heather MacDonald, Obama Admin’s Sexual Assault Lunacy, May 27, 2014. RealClear Politics.com.

56.     Robert H. Bork. Slouching Towards Gommorah. p. 193

57.     For over two year’s allegations of mishandling sex assault cases came to aspersive attacks by a typically truculent national government on the University of Montana, Missoula Police Department, and Missoula county attorney’s office. It would be appropriate for the bullies of the beltway to elucidate why they did this.

58.     Kevin D. Williamson, National Review Online, Return of the Anti-Chinese league, Dems want California Universities to resurrect an ugly institution, Web, March 16, 2014. “California has a long and ugly history of discriminating against Asian Americans. From the Anti-Jap Laundry League, the Anti-Chinese League, the Asiatic Exclusion League, the alien land laws, the Anti-Coolie Act . . . the list is long. Much of that discrimination had its origins on the left….”

59.     DEA/Drug Scheduling, Schedule I. www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml. 6/21/2014

60.    “Advocates,” says Theodore Dalrymple, “have almost convinced Americans that legalization will remove most of the evil that drugs inflict on society. Don’t believe them.” Theodore Dalrymple, Don’t Legalize Drugs, City Journal, Web, Spring 1997.

61.   Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gommorah. p. 167. This paragraph was written with stopping criminal actions in mind. Yet guns can save lives, people who live in proximity to wildlife, for instance. In Montana it is not out of the ordinary to find all sorts of fierce wildlife romping their way through your yard, but sometimes not. For example, a moose, which can be very aggressive, might decide to park himself next to your car (true story), now the best course of action is no action, do not provoke the moose and eventually he’ll wander off (that’s the theory anyway), but there are times, as was lately demonstrated in Missoula when a man and his girlfriend were taking a walk, when you happen upon one of these behemoths and, moose being sometimes cranky, take a run at you. This one did. The woman who had no gun wisely skedaddled; the man, who did have a gun (a 9 mm), faced the moose while backing away but tripped and fell, and not wanting to be chivalrous to the point of death, shot the moose, a great many times. Thus the moose became dinner and the two lovers lived to love again, but not if he hadn’t had a gun.

One Montana legislator who in response to the Hobby Lobby decision stridently claimed women purchasing their own birth control (taking care of themselves) “threatens the very foundations of democracy,” has recently come forward to lead the charge to qualify Montana’s castle doctrine in response to the killing of a student who had entered a family’s garage allegedly looking for beer, legitimizing lethal force only if the intruder enters a residence in a “violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner.” The probability of stealth has no place in this Legislators reasoning, only miscreants who behave raucously are a licit threat. However—and this is not in reference to the deceased young man—evil does not order itself to the law nor does it necessarily announce its intentions, often evil creeps.

In that case, the wife of the man convicted of the murder, allegedly in defense of his family and home in Missoula, has in the press, by the prosecution, been accused of everything her husband has been charged with except pulling the trigger—on a youth she referred to as a “dirty rat”—this includes prosecutorial allegations of laying a trap in order to kill. But she, for some unknown reason, has been given a pass to freedom. No one has reportedly objected to Ms. Kaarma making her way to freedom over the dead “dirty rat.” Justice is flexible. (Markus Kaarma)

Years ago when the aforementioned language was still in the law, to the best of my memory, an off duty police officer shot and killed a husband he had cuckolded as the man walked into the officer’s garage. The man was not armed and there were no reports of his making any threats; no “violent, riotous, or tumultuous behavior.” Nor was there any small talk, the “officer” just opened fire, killing him. Nobody objected. Flexible.

This may be something like the woman in the Missoula valley who shot and killed a family member she said had threatened her (we have her word for it). The result of that event has been blanked out of print, as has the outcome of the attempted kidnapping of a prepubescent girl by a man reported earlier the same day at a local homeless center to be exposing more of himself and his habits than anyone cared to see (reports varied), before streaking out the door to jubilantly roam the streets of Missoula for the rest of the day. For the city apparently did not want to apprehend nor prosecute him for political reasons. As fate would have it, he had the good fortune to be running around town making his case for au naturel at the same time the city was on the verge of claiming that indecent exposure law did not apply to fellow progressives, in the grip of a relativistic legal realism, who were determined to ride through town naked. The mayor, a lusty progressive, called it a free speech done deal. If memory serves, the local paper ran a story that said Montana law allows for a possible life sentence for third time offenders. Some of them may have taken a much longer ride than they anticipated. Anyway, at the end of the day he’d had so much fun he apparently decided to cap it off by allegedly kidnapping a little girl. I wrote a letter of protest to our Republican Attorney General that may as well have been put in a bottle and cast into the sea. As usual, mum’s the word in Helena. This censoring of the news and distortion of justice has been enforced, as well, in the case of an older gentleman who through no fault of his own fed his animals less than the optimum amount. (They lost weight but still had plenty of vim and vigor left to flee the self-righteous “rescuers.”) If, however, you do this in Missoula were progressives rule and men and women who just can’t wait to hang out in the toilet with our little boys and girls, like it, you will be made into a second caste citizen at best—a felon for the rest of your life. After an honorable life (he may have been an octogenarian), for the sake of adherence to the politically correct he will bear this shame to his grave. Further, if you are a brown skinned heterosexual woman with no one to defend you (gays aren’t going to) and a homosexual white girl who towers over you physically and has been hitting on you repeatedly despite your protests, gets into your bed and put her hands on you, and you, not being so inclined, react in surprised fear and disgust and flee, (much as gays would have it otherwise, if a homosexual is intimate with a heterosexual it will be perceived as disgusting by the latter) only to be followed, harassed and intimidated, it’s your fault, (apparently, no does not mean no when a homosexual is the aggressor. Would contemporary “humanists” approve?) No matter how many times you appealed for help you are left to endure the humiliation and fear. You did wrong. By decree of homosexuals you will feel their wrath and suffer, you will be declared homophobic, and government will make no claim of the aggressor’s sexual impropriety. So there’s a double standard that all the gays and feminists in Montana politics can’t deny. Sex on the sly: if you’re gay sexual harassment and attempted rape are ok. Just hold still and let the gays cop their feel.

Sometime toward the end of June 2015 I had the experience of unwanted touching when the local frotteur gay bully, who has shown a predilection for ramming into me with his shoulder as I walk about, apparently decided that wasn’t enough and rubbed across my posterior when he caught me in a bent over position. (Now if he had been a she this may have been flattering. After all, no matter the myths, age is no more kind to men than women, who, it is observed in support of Sir Tim, just complain more; men on the other hand are perhaps too embarrassed to complain, and shouldn’t, else women “will not make them lunch.” A thought Sir Tim did not utter, but, nevertheless, one worth pondering, “now seriously.”) But this Bump & Rub denizen of the homeless shelter in Missoula seems immune to any authority of government, it will do no good to complain to any one of this triumvirate, they have made clear their policy by their past actions. Nor is this cognizable before federal authority, unless I in my outrage should defend myself, in which case I could be a defendant in federal court, because our intellectually stunted federal legislators cannot understand the equality principle or property rights, i.e., in regard to the latter, my person is my property. No trespassing. They instead have, in their utter stupidity, passed hate laws that, in regard to the former, destroy reciprocal equality and essentially make me every gay guy’s unwilling boy toy. Note to gay guys with an inclination to Bump & Rub: follow the Presidents lead. Get a grip on your problem.

The authorities, after fearlessly monitoring the writing of this letter, have taken to reporting these allegations to the management of the homeless shelter. This is extremely improper, since doing so makes civilians essentially agents of government (which is now customary throughout society). Not only that, but agents in a highly illegal terror action by government against an innocent family. What does Jim Comey think he’s doing?

Something similar took place when a fellow co-worker and friend of mine who had been in the military, once came back from exercises. He was taking a shower when the only other man in the shower came up to him and asked my friend to “touch it,” his penis that is. That proposition was declined, repeatedly so, to the point that after having explained he had no interest in doing that, in exasperation finally grabbed the man by his penis and led him out of the shower room, instructing the man not to bother him anymore. (Again, no matter what the left says publicly no does not mean no when a homosexual is the aggressor. Further, speaking publicly of gay assaults is generally not allowed because it ruins the, pitying, gay as victim narrative.) Naturally, the man being a psychopath was enraged his control had been challenged. (But he got want he wanted.) My friend probably suffers for that to this day. The next cell is only a phone call away. 

Public places seem to attract gays acting out sexually. I once walked into a public restroom here in Montana and was confronted by a youngster, standing in the middle of the floor, with an erection imploring his young buddy to “touch it.” It made me wonder, “Is this how Bill Clinton got started?” I turned around and left.

This sort of hypocrisy is not limited by state boundaries. In Washington State gays may anally gang rape their female advocates, presumably as a disciplinary action when they start thinking and acting for themselves, but when florist Barronelle Stutzman politely declined to participate in a gay wedding, (still offering to sell the men flowers but not to arrange them, and moreover declaring her friendship for one of the men. A friendship he was psychologically incapable of reciprocating), she has, at the pleading of the feisty state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and direction of equally feisty Benton County superior court judge Alexander Ekstrom, been fiscally and emotionally raped by that state (Washington state has an established track record of enjoying a “good” rape). These very costly suits against her (one from the state, one from the former customer) may end with the surrender not only of her liberty to act on her beliefs, but her business and personal assets, such as her retirement and personal savings—perhaps even her home. The property in her labor is now to be the states, directed by state despots for their purposes.  That was formerly called slavery. This grandma’s rights have met their end at the stroke of a biased and vicious homosexual pen. (Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, Washington Update, February 19, 2015, July 7, 2015, Web.)

And in Oregon the gay terror marches on. Emboldened perhaps by the coup on their former Governor and the installation of one more politically reliable, the Bureau of Labor and Industry’s Comrade Brad Avakian made Aaron and Melissa Klein feel the pain by threatening to put a lien on their home if they did not pay a $135,000 fine by the 13^th of July (2015), in addition he forbade them to speak of the original decision, ever. Sounds like Stasi 101. (Family Research Council, July 7, 2015)

“Interestingly enough,” in Colorado baker Jack Phillips has been charged with discrimination for turning down a same sex wedding job and that state “just vindicated a Denver baker who objected to putting a Bible verse on a cake. If [that baker], Marjorie Silva, could turn down an order based on ‘her standards of offensiveness,’ why not Jack?” (Family Research Council, July 7, 2015)

In a case of “there’s no problem here,” that may not be unrelated to these sexual politics, a Missoula judge decided to take advantage of a vague law to dismiss a lawsuit for a recount in a state legislative race the outcome of which the suit alleges, “statistically likely…to occur in only one out of 588,000 HD 94 elections.” Democrats, who are more likely to torture heterosexual Republicans in Missoula than suffer their election, can thus rest easy that no electoral shenanigans will be exposed. (Marbut/Dudik)

And the piece de resistance may be the Citizens United decision of which the Montana Supreme court unanimously seemed to think local biases overruled the United States Constitution’s protection of speech. Though the Justices surely have some secrets they do not wish to share it would be interesting to hear how they came to the decision to subvert the First Amendment thus limiting political participation, furthering arbitrary power, limiting speech, and undermining mutual equality. 

62.     The Declaration of Independence

63.     The following list of Senators is just one example of how deeply ingrained and complacently accepted the habits of betrayal have become in the polity. These forty eight Senators set their selves against the First Amendment in order to, again, limit the citizenry’s political participation, furthering arbitrary power, limiting speech, and undermining mutual equality. (There seems to be an emerging pattern.) Their honor is forever stained with this betrayal.

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.),  Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.) Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), John Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.)

George Will, Real political extremism: Left Senators tried hard to limit a key American right, September 11, 2014. Jewish World Review, 12/29/2014.

64.     Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 8/25/2014. Note: If anyone bothers to read his essay they will find most of the sentence that precedes the quote is attributable to Lord Acton’s instruction.

65.  1.1.3., The state as terrorist & 1.1.1. The reign of terror, Web, 9/21/2014. Plato.Stanford.edu./entries/terrorism/.

66.     The Essential C.S. Lewis, Lyle W. Dorsett (editor), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, NY. 1988. p. 309, and Mere Christianity, p. 36

67.     Yuval Levin, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left, Basic Books, New York, NY, 2014. p. 49

68.     ibid. p. 50

69.     ibid. p. 52

70.     ibid. p. 154-5

71.     ibid. p. 153

72.     ibid. p. 47-8

73.    Lord Acton, The History of Freedom and Other Essays/Nationalism, Web. Online Library of Liberty.

74.  John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chapter II, Section 4. Web. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

75.     Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.

76.     Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter II, Section 4. Web.

77.     Lewis, Mere Christianity, p.