How to cleanse right-wing brainwashing...

I speak from the position of someone who voted for Trump twice. I was never really what would be properly called a "Trumper" or "MAGA" even, except maybe to those on the hard left who see any opposition of any kind toward leftism as being "MAGA" or "Trumpism" or "Trump-supportive". Like how many Biden voters or Hillary Clinton voters do you really honestly know who actually gave whole support to the ideologies of those? Like most people, I just ended up voting for the lesser of evils. But nevertheless, I did venture more toward right-wing brainwashing. I think a lot of it is dictated by the news we watch. But there is a large responsibility that the left itself needs to take up in creating right-wing brainwashing. There's positive brainwashing and negative brainwashing. And the left contributes to a lot of negative brainwashing.

Pigeonholing is a tactic used frequently in rhetoric where someone puts someone in a position that they would not otherwise hold because of hasty generalizations or strawmanning or even guilt by association. And the left excels in it. I do believe this is how many otherwise conservative people, such as David French, get sucked into making excuses for the left even as the left attacks them. Because if they didn't stray toward the left, they'd end up in my position of being labeled a "MAGA". But that's the thing, these are labels that can be rejected. Labels aren't something that are handed out by people who aren't extemist. Labels are handed out by people who are extremists! I want to make that clear. Understanding that there is pigeonholing by left-wing extremists and anyone who undertakes in pigeonholing is, more often than not, an extremist, is a crucial component of this.

You're not an extremist just because someone says you are an extremist. In fact, you might be normal. I have empathy toward those who see January 6, 2021 as an insurrection. I think that it is an opinion. It doesn't make someone a defender of "MAGA" or a "Trumper" to be able to understand that the usage of the term "insurrection" to define that event is opinionated. What's more concerning is when politicians use the opinionated term as part of their investigation into what happened and so the legal search starts with a conclusion and then finds evidence to support that conclusion. Others, such as myself, see an otherwise organized rally that somehow erupted into a riot. And that's an equally justified opinion unless evidence proves there was an insurrection. When it becomes a matter of good and evil to see such a thing as an insurrection or people who became riotous and politicians start to use that as part of a legal investigation of the issue, that's dangerous. But an extremist, nevertheless, isolates people who see it as either/or into groups of us vs. them and ignores their own responsibility.

So during the Summer of 2020, the President had to hide in a bunker. That is a fact. He had to hide into a bunker because an organized group of people was committing violent acts, vandalizing the streets of Washington, D.C., and riot cops had to be called into to break everything up. Leftists denied this happened and yet video footage showed it happened. When confronted with this, leftists didn't call it out. They actually sought to justify it based on the nation's treatment of racial minorities...in the past. Most people tend to grow up, but extremists tend to grasp onto what happened in the past and act as if everything in the past is the same as today. That's why you get "Hitler" analogies. Obviously, no one's bringing back Hitler. Though due to the fact that Nazism is a variation of socialism and both right and left cling to socialism, it's understandable why so many make these Hitler analogies, on both right and left. The point is, that the Summer riot could also be categorized as an insurrection.

An insurrection, I think, is something that should be defined before the word is thrown out. Generally speaking, insurrection refers to acts that are intentionally undermining the Civil Government. It's impressive to me how many leftists will insist that our government institutionalizes racism and then will somehow care about that government being undermined. That's just cognitive dissonance disorder. Either you care about the institution or you think the institution is inherently racist. The fact that intent is typically emphasized is why I don't think that January 6, 2021 was an insurrection. I'm not saying it may have been, I'm just saying I don't think that happened. The only insurrection I am aware of that happened with certainty was the insurrection in Seattle that occurred in 2020 with "CHAZ".

Going back to my original point, extremism happens on both sides. I don't know what side it is more common with, but the hard rightists typically see the media make comments ad nauseam about right-wing extremism. Then they see on social media video clips of various examples of left-wing extremists and they are hurt and wounded by the fact that there is so much demonization of the right. More than that, but people in the middle, who hold more socially conservative views, see all of this, end up being pigeon-holed along with the more extreme bunch of the right, and end up being categorized as "MAGA", "Trumpers", "Nazis", and "extremists" as well. No one likes being called things they aren't, but it's a part of labeling. Cults typically divide the world into two categories of good guys vs. bad guys. It's easier then to glorify violent acts such as the knifing of Derek Chauvin (leftists recently) and the death of George Floyd (right-wing extremists in the past and today). Or even Kyle Rittenhouse's usage of force against people trying to kill him. Even justified violence should not be glorified. It reminds me of what Elyas says to Perrin Aybara in The Wheel of Time. The moment you start to love that axe is when you need to get rid of it.

The left has engaged in what I would call "negative brainwashing". By creating such a negative picture of the right, that more people on the right have started materializing that in response to the left-wing extremism that is both justified by the media and supported by politicians. Did Nancy Pelosi ever call out those who vandalized a crisis pregnancy center? While opposing right-wing extremism continues to be necessary, it must be remembered that left-wing extremism has media and corporate support. Both should be opposed equally. Those who are of the Kingdom of God know that the enemies attack it from all sides. The warfare is not a material one, but it is an important one. For the left to actually get rid of right-wing extremists, they themselves need to stop thinking like extremists of seeing people as two groups, those for, and those against, their ideological group think. But one thing I give credit to the left on, they at least know that the Kingdom of God is their main enemy.

Biden is excommunicated

I haven't discussed politricks on this blog in a while but the deliberations by the U.S.C.C.B. over whether to commune Biden, the Vatican's response to bishops who have lashed out against the traitorous heretic, and the media's phoniness about this intra-Catholic skirmish has my skin boiling. First off, if you're an orthodox Catholic, don't think for a moment that any member of the U.S.C.C.B. is "on your side". They aren't. José Gómez assaults the truths of the Catholic faith just as much as Biden does. Gómez's vision is clearly to turn the Church into a functional political party. While the Church is a political party as it is the Kingdom of God, what I mean is that these bishops want to turn the Church into an earthly political party. They don't intend to elevate the Church at all. In fact, they are politicizing the Eucharist. These people want to make a show of Biden to bolster their own political power so it looks like they're on the "right side" of orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. The fact of the matter, an "excommunication" decision on their part is nothing more than a justification for their complicity with the lockdown orders, their siding with the rejection of the Church's traditional upholding of the death penalty, their support of the destruction of the Catholic liturgy, and their support of the democratic ideology. These bishops favor moving the Church to an earthly political power. They couldn't care any less about the Heavenly Kingdom of the Church.

Secondly, the media has portrayed this as an intra-Catholic struggle between "right-wing" Catholics and "liberal" Catholics. There are no such monickers to describe Catholics. This is entirely a struggle over the essence of the Catholic faith here. The Catholic moral doctrine is at stake. Do we put a hammer down against sin or not? Do we condemn sin in the flesh or not? Are we about building up and converting sinners into saints or not? Are we about transforming people from ravenous wolves into the most peaceful and humble of sheep or not? This is what is at stake. There shouldn't be any politics involved in the life of the Catholic any more than what is required to catch fish for the Lord and reap in the harvest. The media wants to pretend that this is a political struggle for the Church which is why they've applied political terms and placed it in the Church. This is not a political struggle for power in the Church. It shouldn't be. This is a struggle for the essence of Truth. It is a spiritual struggle. Do the orthodox prevail within the Church or are we to be cast out with our Holy Father John Chrysostom along with St. Olympias and suffer martyrdom with Tigrius and Eutropius? This is a spiritual struggle over sin for the faithful. We may be bludgeoned by heretical bishops but the struggle will not last forever. St. John Chrysostom reminds us that the battle is over sin (Letters to Olympias), not over clerical power. Will we be given over to Satan by our ecclesiastical hierarchy or will we be preserved as the Kingdom of Heaven by our hierarchy?

Third, it does not matter what the vote result is for Truth is not a democracy but a person. Our clergy are corrupt parasites much the same way that heretical politicians like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, Tim Kaine, Andrew Cuomo, Paul Ryan, Gina Raimondo, and Joe Biden are. Parasites consume a host in order to live. These politicians, like our bishops, have no power if they are given no host. The reality is, their host has become the Catholic Church and the holy sacraments. These politicians have no allegiance to the Catholic faith as is displayed by their sin and their hatred to their brethren. He who loves not his brother loves not God, as the Apostle John the Evangelist has spoken. How can you love your brother if you willfully engage in the persecution of your brother? You cannot. Biden has willfully engaged in the persecution of a group of Catholic nuns when he served as Vice President with Obama. He loves not his brother as was shown with his engagement in the persecution with those who served the Church faithfully. If Biden claims he is a Catholic, then those nuns were his brethren and he engaged in persecution against them. He hates his fellow Catholic. He hates his fellow brethren. He loves not his brother. He loves not God. This is not an open question. Biden is a persecutor from within. Any love of God he claims to have is a sham. He hates his brothers so he also hates God.

Fourth, this is not a dispute. Catholic ecclesiology is clear on the subject. Manifest heretics, according to St. Cyprian, are not members of the Church. An excommunication is merely only a pastoral declaration that someone is not a member of the Church in the hopes that it serves to call them back to repentance. Pastoral care, unlike what the phony Cardinal Wilton Gregory, who himself does not hold any formal authority as a Cardinal, is about bringing people to repentance. The Catholic faithful do not commune with heretics nor are subjected to heretics. A manifest heretic is an open heretic who has been denounced previously for his apostasy and his open contradictions to the tradition of the faith. No one in Washington, D.C. has any subjection to the authority of Wilton Gregory just as Nestorius lost his episcopal authority from the moment he began preaching his heresies about the Holy Theotokos. Biden has been denounced publicly as a heretic multiple times. He has no real or authentic communion with Holy Mother Church. He is excommunicated. No declaration is needed. The fact that we have bishops who think that we can still commune a heretic shows that the Church is in as bad, if not worse, a situation since the Arian crisis. The bishops need to get their act together and recall what the Church teaches about manifest heretics like Biden and Gregory. We have communion with neither of them. As St. Jerome once asked the Pope, "must we be separated from the Arians by mere walls?"

Fifth, Biden is not just a heretic for his stance on abortion. The bishops want to make this solely about abortion because they would like not to admit their dreadful stances on other social issues and the entirety of the social doctrine of the faith for it would expose them. The bishops are only intent on being secular humanists and supporters of the establishment political position as much as they can. This is why they are only concerned with abortion. But Biden is in open denial of Catholic teaching on numerous issues. He upholds democratic ideology which the Church condemns. Until he acknowledges that his authority comes from God, it is inevitable that Biden's reign will be taken away and he will be made to dine on grass like a cow, just as Nebuchadnezzar was made to dine on grass like a beast of the earth. Biden's authority will be degraded if he continues to claim falsely that his authority comes from the people. That is the democratic ideology that he adheres to. That is condemned by the Church. It made Pontius Pilate a pawn of the Synagogue of Satan as he put Our Lord to death. Biden has acted as an official at a gay "marriage", defiling the sanctity of marriage. That act alone excommunicates him automatically. Any one suggesting he is still a "Catholic" either has not read canon law or is not aware of this for anyone who even attends a gay "marriage" is automatically excommunicated and Biden officiated one. Biden also has enacted openly racist policies favoring "coloured" people over others. It does not matter what the skin color is, racism is racism. Biden has assisted at a Novus Ordo "Mass" which indicates he may not be genuinely fulfilling his Sunday obligations. Need I mention Quod Primum which automatically excommunicates those who attend or create "new Masses" other than the ones instituted by Holy Mother Church which are 200 years old or older at the time of the writing? And the document was written in the 16th century? Biden has persecuted his brethren for standing against contraceptives. Thus, Biden has defiled the Church's teaching on abortificients and contraceptives and has shown that he does not love his brother, therefore, he does not love God. The bishops want to make this about abortion so they can claim this is about preserving human dignity. They are only concerned with a materialistic humanist agenda. If they excommunicated Biden for all the reasons he is already excommunicated for, they would have to excommunicate themselves as well. The bishops' real goal here is humanism.

Sixth, the Eucharist has routinely been "politicized". If anyone in the hierarchy is sensitive about denying a politician the Eucharist over the concern that the Eucharist is "politicized", they really ought to show their flocks the money flowing into their pockets first and then read their history books second. The Church has been no stranger to calling Catholic politicians and statesmen back to the herd. We excommunicated Frederick II. We excommunicated the Simoniac Henry IV. We excommunicated the murderer Henry II. We threatened the excommunication of Henry III of England. We excommunicated the adulterer Henry VIII. We interdicted the Netherlands, Germany, and England. Oh yes, we've "politicized" the Eucharist. The Catholic Church has always used these as a means of calling people back to the herd so that they may receive the Eucharist again, not to their deaths but to eternal life. This is what the Eucharist is about. In reality, the bishops refusing to declare a heretic to be excommunicated have politicized the Eucharist for they see in the Eucharist political gain for themselves. They see in the Eucharist a source of political power much like the Arians who booted St. Athanasius out of their Church have done. They see denying people the Eucharist as a threat, not to pastoral care of the flock, but to their image and social standing among the humanist liberals. And the U.S.C.C.B. isn't really better as they are only concerned with one heresy held by Biden. These are not your friends, nor are they God's friends, even if they do rightfully conclude that Biden is to be denied Holy Communion. But that's beside the point. There is no declaration needed for a manifest heretic. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is already excommunicated and any bishop who says otherwise is a wolf in sheep clothing at this point.

American Harlot

"Behold, I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast" (Rev. 17:4). She had the name, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" (17:5). There are metaphorical symbols that we may not fully understand but we are given to know that the Antichrist will find himself opposed to the Whore of Babylon just before her judgment. He will be God's instrument of vengeance against the Great Harlot. The Harlot has carried out great influence and has even gone to cause these kings who will work together with the Antichrist to overthrow the Harlot. We don't know who the Harlot is. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman has the following to say about what tradition has stated about her:

"Secondly, let it be considered, that as Babylon is a type of Rome, and of the world of sin and vanity, so Rome in turn may be a type also, whether of some other city, or of a proud and deceiving world. The woman is said to be Babylon as well as Rome, and as she is something more than Babylon, namely, Rome, so again she may be something more than Rome, which is yet to come. Various great cities in Scripture are made, in their ungodliness and ruin, types of the world itself." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 4)

In reading Richard Bauckham's The Theology of the Book of Revelation, he writes the following about this Mother of Harlots:

"From John's perspective Rome's evil lay primarily in absolutizing her power and prosperity. Consequently she pursued and maintained them at the expense of her victims. According to 18:24, it is not just for the martyrdom of Christians, but for the slaughter of all her innocent victims that Rome will be judged: 'in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who have been slain on earth'. There is therefore a sense in which Revelation takes a view from the 'underside of history', from the perspective of the victims of Rome's power and glory. It takes this perspective not because John and his Christian readers necessarily belonged to the classes which suffered rather than shared Rome's power and prosperity. It takes this perspective because, if they are faithful in their witness to the true God, their opposition to Rome's oppression and their dissociation of themselves from Rome's evil will make them victims of Rome in solidarity with the other victims of Rome. The special significance of Christian martyrdom is that it makes the issue clear. Those who bear witness to the one true God, the only true absolute, to whom all political power is subject, expose Rome's idolatrous self-deification for what it is." (38-39)

It is interesting that everything that Bauckham writes here can very elaborately be applied to the United States of America today. In the Harlot is found the blood of all the innocent, oppressed, prophets, and saints. It is her judgment that reveals to the world the evils of Babylon the Great and yet, the world, participating in her sins, has also become and taken part in the sins of Babylon the Great to such an extent that they mourn her death. Christians are told to join the courts of Heaven in celebrating the triumph of Heaven over the Whore of Babylon as she is ultimately devoured by even the very barbarous enemies of the Antichrist. Her sins have worn down the saints of the Most High to such an extent that those who provide faithful witness will already be in a state of desiring the ultimate triumph over the Great Harlot. They will not mourn for the rest of the world who partakes in her sins for next, the Antichrist who leveled her will also be slain.

But does this apply so strongly to Rome? Maybe the ancient readers viewed it as such but Babylon is called "Mystery" here. A "mystery", as the ancient Christians understood the term, was something that one was to be initiated into. As Newman gives us Babylon as a type, and Rome as a type, so maybe also the great misunderstanding of this Evil Harlot that extended her sins to the Heavens. On many issues, St. Augustine not only exonerated, but also proved why God allowed Rome to blossom and grow. It was not because of her wickedness, certainly not. But because she was morally superior to the other nations. Yet Rome became infatuated with its false deities and so it refused to acknowledge that it was the true God who delivered the Carthaginians and the Druids into her hands.

According to the Romans, the Carthaginians were slain for their infatuation with the evils and horrors of infanticide. There is some speculation that the Carthaginians might have even come from the same bloodlines as the Philistines and worshiped the same demons as the Philistines. This horrified the far more civilized Romans and they declared war on Carthage and subdued it. Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars, recounts the horrifying details of the Druid practice of human sacrifice. Horrified by this, Caesar, in his highest and most civil sensibilities, declared all-out war on the Druids until they put an immediate end to the practice. But Rome refused to admit that God had delivered these into her hands.

Rome's chief sin was not its immorality but its haughtiness and its self-deification.

Certainly Christians underwent many persecutions under Rome but these were at different intervals of time, with some persecutions being worse, some Emperors being more tolerable toward the Christian religion, and then settling down the next minute. These were persecution cycles they went through. Candida Moss declares it The Myth of Persecution but that is an instance of extreme nonsense from the anti-Christian world. There was persecution, but it exited at differing intervals until the Holy Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be legal. Even during and after Constantine, orthodox Christians still experienced different intervals of persecution which depended on the governing authorities of the Roman Empire. The sack in 476 A.D. spared the West and enabled Christianity to rule the Empire as Charlemagne was soon crowned as Emperor Augustus by the Pope of Rome. To the great fury of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople. But the result is clear. The subjection of the Roman Emperor, whether in the West or in the East, to the Church, proved decisive in Rome's survival. This is the argument that St. Augustine makes in The City of God. Though pride is the deadliest of all sins, it is hard to see that as extending to the offense of Heaven as greatly as the Harlot's sins. No, the sin here must be seen as unforgivable. Pride is a deadly sin but it is forgivable through the greatest acts of humility.

There are some who revel in the sins they commit and they look for ways to commit even greater sins. This is the manifestation of the sin of the Whore of Babylon. We have seen with our governors here in America how they revel and glorify in the sin of murder. One governor says, "I can kill them when they're 24 weeks in the womb!" And the next governor says, "I can kill them when they're outside the womb!" It's no longer that they are horrified by the sinfulness of their perversities but instead they go out of their way to increase the number of their sins! They bask in these sins. They raise their hearts to the skies and say, "Nothing shall happen to us! Those who criticize us are morons! Nothing to see here!" Everything of the Whore of Babylon, from persecution of the saints through murderous campaigns of the Ku Klux Klan's assaults and killings of Catholics, to the chaining of slaves, to the leveling of innocent civilians overseas, to even the slaying of infants! Everything of the Whore of Babylon is a sin of which the stench reaches to the heights of the Most High.

The religion of Antichrist is rather interesting. He will honor a god of forces and yet exalt himself above all that which is called God. Much the same, the Whore of Babylon seems to mimic or even foreshadow the religion of Antichrist in a sense. St. Hippolytus tells us that when Rome is subdued by the ten kings, these kings will hold sovereignty over democracies that resemble kingdoms. "As these things, then, are in the future, and as the ten toes of the image are equivalent to (so many) democracies, and the ten horns of the fourth beast are distributed over ten kingdoms" (On Christ and Antichrist, 27). And St. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarks on the lust of the United States of America for its state religion:

"On the other hand, after having broken away from all restraint as regards God and man, they gave a name to that reprobate state itself into which they had thrown themselves, and exalted it, that very negation of religion, or rather that real and living blasphemy, into a kind of god. They called it LIBERTY, and they literally worshipped it as a divinity. It would almost be incredible, that men who had flung off all religion should be at the pains to assume a new and senseless worship of their own devising, whether in superstition or in mockery, were not events so recent and so notorious. After abjuring our Lord and Saviour, and blasphemously declaring Him to be an impostor, they proceeded to decree, in the public assembly of the nation, the adoration of Liberty and Equality as divinities: and they appointed festivals besides in honour of Reason, the Country, the Constitution, and the Virtues. Further, they determined that tutelary gods, even dead men, may be canonized, consecrated, and worshipped; and they enrolled in the number of these some of the most notorious infidels and profligates of the last century. The remains of the two principal of these were brought in solemn procession into one of their churches, and placed upon the holy altar itself; incense was offered to them, and the assembled multitude bowed down in worship before one of them—before what remained on earth of an inveterate enemy of Christ." ("Lectures on Antichrist", Part 2)

He further states of the American religion, "And further, let it be remarked, that there was a tendency in the infatuated people I have spoken of, to introduce the old Roman democratic worship, as if further to show us that Rome, the fourth monster of the prophet's vision, is not dead. They even went so far as to restore the worship of one of the Roman divinities (Ceres) by name, raised a statue to her, and appointed a festival in her honour."

Babylon is a type, Rome is a type, and currently, America is a type. If course for our history is not reversed drastically, the current state of both political affairs and religious affairs could usher in the Reign of Antichrist sooner than we imagine. Of the day and hour no one knows. And the Great Harlot shall not be revealed to us until her destruction. But we can clearly see how the United States of America fulfills so many characteristics. The question is whether it will continue to harden and claim that she is Queen, not a widow. Will she begin an even greater persecution of Christians than did even the Soviet Union? I resist speculating more for while the United States clearly fits the description of this effeminate Harlot, I do not believe any one will know until the coming of Antichrist who she actually is.

The inherent moral superiority of monarchies

"Many authors glorify war and revolution, bloodshed and conquest. Carlyle and Ruskin, Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Spengler were harbingers of the ideas which Lenin and Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini put into effect."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, Part Four, ch. XXIII

Monarchies are inherently morally superior. What more is there to substantiate from this? We have the existence of the revolutionaries who do not care to discriminate over those they slaughter. They have sent women to the guillotine, shot children, looted stores. Does it matter whether they even have a "good" cause? For the degenerate revolutionaries, their only concern is to reap death, intimidate, so that they can hold the power they want. Starting with the French Revolution, barbarism has prevailed among the deranged opponents of monarchism. While one could insist the Colonists were the civilized traitors to His Imperial Majesty but the Founding Fathers of America also intended for a blend of monarchy with aristocracy. The degenerate revolutionaries in France took their treasonous vampire-like activities a step further than we've probably yet to come across even today, but don't worry, the revolutionaries are trying to think up new sordid activities!

"We are told that in this sadistic se orgy, pregnant women were squeezed out in fruit- and winepresses, mothers and their children were slowly roasted to death in bakers' ovens, and women's genitals were filled with gun powder and brought to explosion. We cannot continue to dwell on these unspeakable horrors and should not be surprised that Sade was invoked in whose pornographic writings long passages are devoted to philosophical (and antireligious) reflections." (Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, The Myth of National Defense, 90)

To emphasize the civilized and generous nature of monarchies, it is important to reflect on the nature of their restraint in punishing those who have come against humanity. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia cites the First Statute of English Parliament under Her Majesty Mary Tudor as stating,

That the state of every King consists more assuredly in the love of the subjects towards their prince than in the dread of laws made with rigorous pains; and that laws made for the preservation of the Commonwealth without great penalties are more often obeyed and kept than laws made with extreme punishments.

The philosopher and historian Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn details and compares the usage of capital punishment in Russia during the Tsarist regime and then during the Soviet regime. Capital punishment figures of 87,000 at a low understatement for the years of 1918-1919 alone. In Tsarist Russia, in the years of 1826 to 1906, the numbers of those sentenced to death were 1,397. 233 of those had their sentences commuted and another 270 were sentenced in absentia. (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, ch. 8)

"Capital punishment has had an up-and-down history in Russia. In the Code of the Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich Romanov there were fifty crimes for which capital punishment could be imposed. By the time of the Military Statutes of Peter the Great there were two hundred. Yet the Empress Elizabeth, while she did not repeal those laws authorizing capital punishment, never once resorted to it. They say that when she ascended the throne she swore an oath never to execute anyone—and for all twenty years of her reign she kept that oath....And one can very easily blacken Elizabeth's reputation too; she replaced capital punishment with flogging with the knout; tearing out nostrils; branding with the word "thief"; and eternal exile in Siberia. But let us also say something on behalf of the Empress: how could she have changed things more radically than she did in contravention of the social concepts of her time?" (Solzhenitsyn, ch. 11)

It is true that while St. John Chrysostom upholds the right of the State to wield the sword of God's vengeance against its obstructers, the same Chrysostom also

"Secular judges indeed, when they have captured malefactors under the law, show their authority to be great, and prevent them even against their will from following their own devices: but in our case the wrong-doer must be made better, not by force, but by persuasion. For neither has authority of this kind for the restraint of sinners been given us by law, nor, if it had been given, should we have any field for the exercise of our power, inasmuch as God rewards those who abstain from evil by their own choice, not of necessity." (On the Priesthood, Bk. II)

While it is not of necessity for a State to restrain itself from the usage of capital punishment, the State that does successfully restrain itself is certainly rewarded. This is why the Tsars never formally abolished capital punishment even as Empress Elizabeth never executed anyone. Mary Tudor, whom Protestants taint as "Bloody Mary", put to death a total of 277, and that was due to the nature of heresy and treason being interconnected during her reign. That is far less than the numbers totaled by the Soviets!

Naturally, when the power is handed down to the masses, the masses divide themselves against each other. They desire to subdue the other. This creates demonization of the other and there is lack of unity and headship as people compete to rule and lord over each other. This is why we see mass deaths and mass bouts of immorality in revolutionary societies. They are governed not by civilization, creed, or family, but by blood-lust, power, greed, money, and evil. After all, monarchy is the best form of government that money cannot buy! So naturally, mob mentality is invoked among the revolutionaries and they turn upon each other, demonizing each other, and subduing one another. They take turns doing this as there is an inherent instability in ideology but the degradation is all the same. The downward devolution of society persists as revolutionaries take to the streets demanding whatever form of justice they foolishly believe they're not getting at a given moment. This does not happen in monarchies. Monarchies are civilized, stable, and governed by the rule of love. We are united as children to the monarch. He is not our comrade but our father and friend!

The Theft of the Biden Administration

St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain describes the following story:

"That which a certain robber and pirate said to King Alexander [the Great] applies also to you. When arrested and asked why he stole, he replied shrewdly to the king that whereas he stole with a small boat, Alexander did so with a great armada." (Christian Morality, Discourse 8)

We here see the dignity of thieves over that of the crooks who do so in broad daylight. We've reached a position in our country where the Federal Reserve is pumping out money with reckless regard to inflation and the Biden administration is Hell-bent on raising taxes and raising gas taxes to pay for infrastructure. Contrary to when the Trump administration tried this, there is no existing accountability any more. Trump is gone, we can freely raise gas taxes for infrastructure. This harms people who drive 50+miles on a regular basis. People like me are constantly in need of gas and Pete Buttigieg is talking about how great an idea it would be to raise gas taxes according to the mile?

But the theft does not stop there. The Biden administration has now gotten involved in the case of a Colorado man, Edward Caniglia, whose wife falsely accused and slandered him of threatening to harm himself. The man was admitted to the hospital. The hospital found and determined he was of no harm to himself or others. But while he was gone, the cops came and found two guns in his house. Without a search warrant, they stole them. Like it or not, the guns were his personal property, he had the legal right to own them, he posed no danger to himself or others and the cops stole his personal property. Now the Biden administration is arguing in defense of the cops to the Supreme Court hoping that it can become a precedent when they start looting our weapons.

But these acts of theft have become so prevalent in government that no one says a word about them any more. The media cheers it on. It's Alexander the Great looting lands afar with a great armada. The thief will come in the night so as not to be seen. He knows the undignified nature of his business. He has more dignity than our looting and thieving government. Our government has taken after King Ahab. They see Naboth's vineyard and they want it. They desire it. They already have plenty of power but it's not enough. They want your inheritance with it. They take it, they seize it, they loot. They do it with the cops, they do it with the military, they come from abroad with an armada. These are not men of God. These are men of the greatest indignity. They do it in broad daylight, with a thunderous applause from their state-allied media corporations.

Poe's Law Strikes Again!

So today, I posted the above meme on my Facebook feed and very quickly got a sharp, "fake news" warning. CNN never put this in their clip. That's when I remembered where I first saw it was in an article from The Babylon Bee which read "Media Now Claims Shooter Was Factually Arab, But Morally White". While the article may have been making a joke, it's hard to lump this as a slanderous claim based on the way we've seen the mainstream media and CNN behave toward the past two shooting incidents. Both of them, the media was very quick to assert that "racism" played a key role in them.

While I do affirm that all crimes are essentially crimes of hate, it's important to note that, legally speaking, to be a "hate crime", one must actually have deliberate racist intent. The problem is that neither of the past two shootings in either Georgia or in Colorado possessed racist intent. The Colorado shooting does not appear to have a political or religious intent either. Though it is accurate to say that both men had political and religious problems inspiring their shootings, neither of them possessed racist intent.

The media has held this ideology though for the past year that whenever a black man is shot by an officer, the black man must have been doing everything right and posed no perceivable threat whatsoever. This has produced dangerous thinking in how we judge people. People are not to be judged based on their skin color but on the quality of their character. In many cases we have found the black man who was "minding his own business" was actively resisting arrest, was armed, in one instant, stole an officer's weapon, etc. That's not a racist statement to make. It is an observation of events. Just because someone is a shooter doesn't necessarily mean the police will shoot them. If they start firing at the cops, a shoot-out may occur and that would generally lead to the shooter's death. But if the shooter voluntarily surrenders himself to police custody when the cops arrive, they will take him peacefully.

This is what these past two shooters did. That is why both of them are still alive. And not to defend the Georgia shooter as what he did was deranged enough, but he didn't shoot the massage therapists with racist intent. This is lacking in the explanation of the shooting. Clearly this man was severely messed up. He may have benefited from having a confessor or a spiritual mentor (I guess he was Baptist so it would be the latter) but it may have helped him significantly with his sexual temptations. It seems like the church just abandoned him. But he did not possess a racist intent.

The media was quick to declare the Colorado shooter a "white man". That was factually untrue. He was Middle Eastern. He was definitely not white Caucasian which is generally what is meant when the media uses the term "white". But that didn't matter to the media. What mattered was that his skin was pale and he was taken into custody peacefully. So can we blame The Babylon Bee for this satire? Can we blame people who were misled by the photo above? Not really.

There is a law called Poe's law. It is a statement on parody. When the parody becomes so close to the reality that the difference between reality and parody is so skewed that one can no longer tell the difference between what is real and what is the parody. One can be forgiven for having thought the clip was a real CNN banner but it wasn't. It was from The Babylon Bee. But this testifies to the fact that the leftist woke media has so vilified and slandered an entire race of people, the likes of the vilification and slander having not been seen since white people did it to blacks in the 1960s, that we have reached a situation where such parody can be mistaken more easily as reality.

What scares our political elite?

A book I strongly suggest right now is The Myth of National Defense, edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. From the year 2003, the series of essays that are included in it contains a strong warning about the current state we have reached in recent times. It's main thesis is on national defense and the neo-conservative abuse of national defense. But the essays that it includes are well worth the time to peruse. As I was reading it the other day, I came across in the essay titled "The Will to be Free: The Role of Ideology in National Defense" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, the following:

"The famed zoologist Richard Dawkins has offered the intriguing proposition that ideas have striking similarities to genes. Many apparent paradoxes in biological evolution disappeared once biologists recognized that the process was driven by the success with which 'selfish' genes (rather than individuals or species) could replicate themselves. Dawkins suggested the term 'memes' be applied to ideas, whose capacity to replicate in other minds likewise determines their spread. No matter how useful this parallel between cultural and genetic evolution may ultimately prove, it at least helps to disabuse us of the illusion that an idea's validity is the sole or primary factor in its success. Those who doubt that false ideas can be tremendously influential need only glance at the worldwide success of so many mutually exclusive religions. It is not simply that they cannot all be true simultaneously; if one is true, then many of the others are not simply false, but badly false. ... The State, for instance, appears to have played no part in the birth and initial growth of Christianity, and the draconian efforts that many governments devote to the suppression of dissent testifies to the threat posed by that kind of autonomous ideological development. ... A people who have successfully fabricated the ideological solidarity necessary to overthrow their domestic rulers would be extremely difficult to conquer, as we have already observed." (291-294)

This scares our ruling class big time. Tucker Carlson compares what is going on in America right now similar to winning a tennis match in which the victors seek to smack the loser on the face. Biden won, the Democrats have majority control in both Houses of Congress, be happy! But it's a lot more complicated than that. The Democrats needed more than just to win. It's not like winning a tennis match 6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 0-6, 7-6. You just barely eked out a close victory getting decimated in a couple of rounds on the way, but you won, your opponent has no victory claim. It's not like that. For the Democrats, this is an ideological war. Ideas can spread like a wildfire and with increasing polarization, Democrats are well aware that an electoral college victory of 306-232 is not enough to win against the will of 74,000,000 voters that are charged against their ideologies. They need to make certain this ideology of "Trumpism" cannot spread ever again. They won't care about nullifying the Constitution on the way. They can interject their own interpretations after all. The goal is to win the ideological war and Trumpism has proven a most formidable opponent against the establishment philosophy of permanent Washington. For the establishment neo-cons, Trumpism isn't just something to beat in an election, it is something that needs to die out permanently. The damage to the establishment caused by this ideology isn't going away any time soon.

Liberal Democracy and Free Speech

The most fundamental concept of a liberal democracy is free speech. Free speech enables rational discussion, the dissemination of ideas, and enables people to build and develop their rational thought. Baruch de Spinoza maintained as much in regard to preserving a liberal democracy. "Every man is 'by indefeasible natural right the master of his own thoughts', and he 'cannot, without disastrous results, be compelled to speak only according to the dictates of the supreme power'" (F.C. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, vol. IV, 258). Government's duty is to promote the individual liberties to develop. While there are limits such as the prohibition of direct incitements to violence and disruption, "rational discussion and criticism do good rather than harm" and "[i]f the attempt is made to crush liberty and to regiment thought and speech...the result is that fools, flatterers, the insincere and unscrupulous flourish" (258). Free speech is essential for progress and intellectual development.

Ludwig von Mises also thought along similar lines in Human Action. All governments are inherently democratic in that the majority tend to submit to them. But if the majority prefer bad leaders, "is committed to unsound principles and prefers unworthy office-seekers, there is no remedy other than to try to change their mind by expounding more reasonable principles and recommending better men" (150). It is the dialogue that pushes onward the effort to place better men in power. But if the dialogue is lost, then the State begins to form into a quasi-theological belief system in which obeisance is awarded to the State at a religious level.

Free speech is fundamental to preserving the free exchange of ideas, allowing people to think what is already on their mind and to say it. The State has not the power to control the actions of an individual man. You decide whether you follow the State's doctrines or not. Only by force can they actually punish you for "wrongthink" or "wrongspeak". But the State has no power or authority to dictate what you can say. "In Soviet Russia, we have freedom of speech! You just get thrown into gulag if you say something the State doesn't like!" How accurate.

In light of the recent events from the Big Tech world, I draw great concern about this area. I am currently platformed but many people are being deplatformed. You might argue that it is a private entity. These Big Tech entities are private entities. And I also concur. But what we are witnessing is a thorough dive into what would be a State-planned economy. A system of State capitalism. This is what we have seen in Soviet Russia. The private entities conglomerating together with the State to set up rules for how to restrain themselves when what they really intend to do is restrain competitors. If this direction continues, it will get to the point where these Big Tech entities are more than just private entities. They will be agents of the State. Google is already an agent of China. So are many Big Tech enterprises. Imagine if they become agents of the State cooperating to do the State's biddings. We are seeing that happen as they huddle under the Democratic Party. The move toward State capitalism must be opposed with vigor.

The Badass Governor of Virginia

Official Seal for the Governor of Virginia

I think we have established something today with Governor Northam's new strain of House Arrest orders. He is super badass. Really badass. Absolutely sensational. That Governor Newsom guy in Cantifornia has nothing on him. Governor Commie-o over in New York? Weakling! They can only figure out a way to shutdown coronavirus for 17 hours. Northam? He can shut it down for 19 hours! 19 hours. That's an entire two hours longer!

Cooltrainer Gavin can stop the virus for
24 hours...but only for himself.

I always knew that guy could do much better than those piles of trash. No one knows exactly when this sharpshooting match between Governor Oakley and his friends started but it may trace all the way back to early 2019 when Governor Commie-o issued the challenge and said, "Any evil you can do, I can do better!" And New York put up pink colors to commemorate the fact that it legalized the murder of children up to 24 weeks in the womb. Governor Northam said, "Look at me! I can kill 'em off post-natal!" Some have wondered if it's not too late for Northam's mother to have an abortion on him.

Northam in his first medical mask.

Not to mention, Northam is a huge mask fanatic. Northam, a pediatrician by profession (which in Bizarro World means infanticidal maniac), knows how effective masks are. He started wearing one back when he studied at the Virginia Military Institute. Northam is so safe with masks as a doctor, his mask covers his whole face as to prevent himself from touching any part of it save for two cut-out holes for his eyes to see through. Well, I guess he's got one for his mouth too in case he needs to play the tuba. Northam is the safest governor of all with masks. He prefers to wear a white mask in the shape of a pointy hood. Virginians know this quite well about Northam. Did you know he still ended up being infected? As it turns out, you can be safe all you want and still get infected. Bummer. It's like we have no control of this virus.

Not spreading COVID-19. He's wearing a mask!

But never fear! We have it under control for 19 hours now! A whole damn 19 hours! Our Governor is like Super Northam for doing this. Unlike Cooltrainer Gavin over in Cantifornia and Governor Commie-o in New York, he has it under control longer. Only at midnight does this scientifically confirmed to be nocturnal virus spread. If we didn't have curfews, this nocturnal virus would prowl around hunting for unsuspecting victims. In fact, it's 100% likely from here on out that in Virginia all COVID-19 cases will be from people who unfortunately made it home only 1 minute after midnight. It will be sad to see so many stragglers dying of this horrible disease that they could have so easily avoided by heading home a whole 2 minutes earlier.

But admit it, we have a badass governor, don't we? Cooltrainer Gavin and Governor Commie-o can only stop it for 17 hours. Their poor denizens have to make it home by 10:00pm or the sinister COVID-19 which lurks the shadows will come out and pounce on his victims. Governor Northam, he can stop it until midnight. Shame that he can't stop it for an additional five hours. Maybe we'll bio-engineer a governor who can some day. Or maybe we'll just get a dumbass like Governor Northam.

Official logo of the United States Dumbasses

In defense of Confederate statues

I'm actually talking about all monuments here. Statues, cemeteries, war memorials, etc. Confederate monuments need to be defended, not because of what they stand for people who are revulsed by them but because of what they stand for the people who put them up. As I have written before, a compelling case can be made in support of the Confederate secessionist movement from the Union. Before casting judgments, that article should be read in full because I provided a very well sustained argument for the Confederacy.

People these days talk of "charity" and "love for your neighbor" as if that is the equivalent of "do not offend your neighbor". It is nothing of the sort. It is to be understandable that things we come across will offend us and cause revulsion. Some things will cause revulsion to us throughout our lives. This is part of becoming an adult. It is how we respond. The problem with Confederate monuments is not their existence but the response to their existence.

In the history following the defeat of the Confederacy there was a long and bitter reunification process called "Reconstruction". Reconstruction is almost universally disparaged by American historians. Former Confederate states were held under what was essentially a military occupation which damaged their economic production and held them as essential slaves of the GOP. The period of Reconstruction ended with the heated and contested Presidential election of 1876 as Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden soared in nationwide popularity with nearly 51% of the majority voting for him. His Republican opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes, staggered with three points less in the nationwide vote. For a long time 20 electoral votes were contested as Tilden held a 184-165 lead. Back then, 185 was the deciding number. After long and bitter contentions, the electoral votes were given to Hayes with the concessions that Republicans would withdraw military troops.

The period of Reconstruction ended. Then came the Jim Crow laws and with them, the Confederate monuments. While it is easy to connect these statues to a "culture of racism", historians tend to know that people are more complex then what our modernist sensibilities seek to limit to them. For these Southerners, it wasn't simply about an animosity they held toward blacks, it was an animosity they had been fostering from the Reconstruction period toward the Union. The Union were centralizers and oppressors. These statues were put up in protest. But statues were put up, nonetheless.

This is the difference between Black Lives Matter, Anti-fa, and White Southerners. White Southerners have a culture. BLM and Anti-fa are about cultural destruction and annihilation. To White Southerners, these things have strong significant meaning and represents their history of oppression. BLM and Anti-fa have been able to scream that they have victimhood status but they use their victimhood to drag people down to their own inhuman level. They do not build culture or contribute to society. They denigrate and degrade society. The people who put up statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., Booker T. Washington, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Malcolm X, these are the people who build and contribute to culture. Confederate statues were placed in protest of the Union and they built up a culture and contributed to American culture. The solution to their existence is not to destroy or remove them but to leave them up and add more statues of honorable men.

The Age of Regress?

We have reached not the age of progress which the liberals once promised to us but the age of regress. I commented to a friend of mine recently that in order to have a liberal democracy dissent must be allowed and permitted. Otherwise, the democracy turns into a dictatorship. But let's clarify further that the term liberal in liberal democracy only qualifies the word democracy. It does not indicate that democracy is inherently a liberal idea. The idea of liberalism has been corrupted ever since the 19th century from the idea of freedom once perpetuated to the idea of democracy. A dictatorship can certainly be just as democratic, if not more. A dictatorship is simply just the logical consequence of collectivism as a result from democracy.

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, in his article "Monarchy and War" in The Myth of National Defense places this accusation rather bluntly on democracy. Citing British Prime Minister Disraeli, "[t]he tendency of an advanced civilization is in truth Monarchy. Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development. ... An educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what is called a representative government." (84) Kuehnelt-Leddihn recalls the political nature of the prosecution of Socrates under the Democratic State of Athens. Socrates was placed to death for the corruption of youth. According to Kuehnelt-Leddihn, part of that corruption was the teaching of monarchy (84). But that is not the least part where we see the brutality of democracy unfolding.

It is at the height of the French Revolution, inspired by the American Revolution, to overthrow the monarchy and establish a democratic and equal form of government where we see the full extent of this brutality. Kuehnelt-Leddihn accurately describes the Revolution as "a sadistic sex orgy in which the 'Divine Marquis' played personally and intellectually a leading role." (86-87) We tend to think of the crimes and horrors of the Revolution being an attack on the aristocracy but even the most vicious "sadistic sex orgy, pregnant women...squeezed out in fruit- and winepresses, mothers and their children...slowly roasted to death in bakers' ovens, and women's genitals...filled with gun powder and brought to explosion." (90)

For Robespierre, the goal was not just simply equality, but sameness. Even Goethe considered those who promised both equality and liberty as charlatans  (87). Robespierre not only dreamed of placing the men of France in one uniform and the women of France in another uniform, he also considered church steeples "'undemocratic' since they were taller than other buildings" (87-88). This outright barbarism of the French Revolution led to such a majoritarian rule in that "truth" was relegated to the possession of the majority (88). It is fair to say that Tucker Carlson is a stand-alone journalist who only follows where truth leads him to these days. My own mother hates the idea that only one man could possibly be telling the truth. But truth does not belong to majorities and as more and more people give themselves to demons, the lies usually remain with the majority and the truth belongs to the minority. As Our Lord even states, "broad is the path that leads to destruction, but narrow is the path that leads to eternal life" (Matt. 7:13).

It is no surprise then that Karl Marx's own ideology was drafted from the French Revolution. "Men have often made man himself into the primitive material of money, in the shape of a slave, but they have never done this with land and soil. Such an idea could only arise in a bourgeois society, and one which was already well developed. It dates from the last third of the seventeenth century, and the first attempt to implement the idea on a national scale was made a century later, during the French bourgeois revolution." (Capital, Vol. 1, Pt. 1, Ch. 2) The theories emerging from this Revolution about absolute equality and sameness do seem rather ominous of a certain set of theories emerging today. These theories exist in the form of critical race theory. Class was the focus of the French Revolution. These were why the buildings were "undemocratic". For critical race theorists, democracy is breaking apart because of this absence of equality too. Indeed, critical race theory derives heavily from Marxist thought. Critical theory always attempts to tear down the old structures, according to Paul Kengor (The Devil and Karl Marx, 392). There is a never-ending search for a new victim. The working class no longer satisfies so Black Lives Matter finds this in perpetuating a myth about extant racism in cops and then other ideas follow suit whether it is in queer theory to attack sexual normativities or in the invented concepts of "white privilege". This is cultural Marxism.

As we move further and further away from hierarchical structures, we move further and further away from a monarchial view of the family in nature, and as such in governance. We move further and further away from nature as a result. We grow the power of the government as a consequence. We become blood-thirsty for power. As Søren Kierkegaard noted, "Is it tyranny when one wants to rule leaving the rest of us others out? No, but it is tyranny when all want to rule." (in Garff, Søren Kierkegaard: A Biography, 487). The turning point for modern culture was indeed with World War I. It started as an old-fashioned territorial dispute which blossomed into a battle to defend democracy as the United States entered in 1917. "When in March 1917 the U.S.-allied Czar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate and a new democratic-republican government was established in Russia under Kerensky, [Woodrow] Wilson was elated. With the Czar gone, the war had finally become a purely ideological conflict: of good against evil." (Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, x). Everything Austria represented was inherently wicked to the American Left according to Kuehnelt-Leddihn. It "inhereited many traditions of the Holy Roman Empire (double-headed eagle, black-gold colors, etc.); it had led the Counter-Reformation, headed by the Holy Alliance, fought against the Risorgimento, suppressed the Magyar rebellion under Kossuth..., and had morally supported the monarchial experiment in Mexico." (x)

Church steeples weren't just simply undemocratic to Robespierre, no. Church steeples were a sign of a monarchial culture. Thus, the age of regress naturally makes enemies with the Church and with Monarchisms throughout. For democracies, there is no greater enemy than the Church. The Church is the prize to corrupt. The Church is the prize to destroy. The Church has the greatest bounty on its head for all democracies. Is it any wonder that the Great War only became ideological upon the abdication of the Czar? Is it any wonder that Marx held religion as the opium of the masses and an obstacle to his Communist philosophy? Is it any wonder that Robespierre held the steeples as being built too high and as a subsequent obstacle to his regime of "equality"? We are in an era of regress. An era given over to a cult of demons. We should conclude here with the Bl. Alcuin, "Neither should we listen to those who say, 'The voice of the people is the voice of God,' for the tumultuousness of the masses is always closer to insanity!"

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 11, Social Policies, Concluding Remarks

I saved social policies for last in this endorsement mostly because social policies, in my view, are best handled at the state and local level. However, with the Joe Biden camp and the Democratic Party, there is increasing concern that the federalist division of our government could greatly be erased leading to a mass centralized democratic form of totalitarianism. Democrats have vowed to pack the courts, appeal to judicial activism to wipe out state and local laws, erase the electoral college, and repeal the Hyde Amendment which permits states to withhold funding from abortion.

Republicans have certainly had a history of smiting conservatives when it comes to social policies. It was under the Reagan administration that no-fault divorce was introduced. In truth, I think had a Democrat like Tulsi Gabbard won the nomination, there wouldn't be any need for concern at all. Tulsi Gabbard is for ending the endless wars. She would be fighting against the deep state just as much as Trump. Certainly, she is a social liberal, but she is also a federalist. Here is where it is important to emphasize the primary significance of federalism in our country. Federation is the only check on centralized democracy. F.A. Hayek noted that in his work, The Road to Serfdom.

The judicial activism we have seen over the years has revealed a trend to clamping down on federalism. Texas should not be expected to permit abortion when the constituents of Texas oppose abortion. Alabama should not be expected to accept gay marriage when its constituents oppose gay marriage. What we've ended up with is a country where a few powerful elites get to determine the religious and social values of the entire country. Today's Democratic Party has determined that not only must we accept the socially "progressive" policies of the left, we must also pay for them. Joe Biden promises to repeal the Hyde amendment, pack the courts, and erase the electoral college.

If Joe Biden is elected, the state could potentially be even more centralized than it is right now. That's not a good situation. What I feel is most important in the current political climate is the allowance of the diversity of opinions. When we are hotly divided over our stances on political dogmas, the best path toward unity is federalism. Federalism allows smaller units to be united amidst each other which may have differing or stricter policies on a vast variety of issues. It would be nice if we could all be united under one head, but that is only possible in a state that is united by religion. That was possible in England when the Edict of Toleration was passed. That was possible in the Holy Roman Empire. It's not possible in our country because we aren't guided by a religious direction. Instead, we are guided by the elevation of secular political policies that have been given a metaphysical value.

Trump has proven a consistent defender of federalism to say the least. A Biden administration would lead us toward centralized government and mass democracy. That would erase any chance to be politically diverse.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final words: "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!"

Well if the Left didn't try to immortalize every one enough, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made one final statement as she went out into the proverbial night. Though it is difficult to know exactly what her last words were, we can assume based on how the advocates of judicial activism responded to her death, that it was very likely "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god!" And unlike Vespasian who stated this as a way to mock the Imperial cult in his dying breath, she meant it. Donald Trump once famously said, "We worship God, not the state." To which the Democrats booed him and refused to stand up. People thought they were godless but we know better. The Democrats have a god. That god is the state. So last night, Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced in her dying breaths that was being assumed into the cult of democracy to be venerated by the worshipers of the democratic religion for ages to come. She said, "Dear me, I think I am becoming a god." And the Left had made her one ages ago.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 10, The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is a critical issue though it should not be. There have been severe problems with the Supreme Court from its development and Thomas Jefferson warned of the judicial overreach of the Supreme Court.

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

Jefferson's criticisms and the attacks on the judiciary branch go on. But the warning is quite clear. An independent judiciary puts us in a situation not just where we turn toward oligarchy but a situation where democracy rapidly takes a turn toward the worse in collectivism.

Regardless of where your stance on DACA is, when Justice Roberts became the tie-breaking judge to maintain the legality of Obama's executive order, he actually effectively transitioned our government into a form of dictatorship by executive order. The executive order has now become cemented in law. Now, any President in the future will be able to issue any executive order on impact. The courts should have never been allowed to become so powerful as to need to trust the appointees of elected officials. In essence, we're already on the verge of becoming a judicial oligarchy.

Judges freely issue unconstitutional gag orders which prohibit freedom of speech, judges decide how laws are to be interpreted effectively deciding what the laws of the country are, etc. This was already bad in the 1800s. Many people assume that the Constitution guaranteed the legality of slavery. It did not. States, after the period of time issued by the Constitution, had the freedom to determine their own laws concerning slavery. But Dred vs. Scott effectively over-ruled the states' rights to determine this on their own. Roe vs. Wade effectively made abortion legal. Obergefell vs. Hodges over-ruled the states' rights on the subject of gay marriage.

How else will federalism be over-ruled by the Supreme Court. Federalism is the only check on mass democracy in this country. Federalism is the only thing that has prevented our mass democracy from turning into a collectivist society. But as we see again and again, states' rights are trampled on and turned to dust. What we need are court justices who will defend states' rights on the courts. Judges who will not be of their own mind on how to interpret the laws but will interpret the laws in accordance with the legislature. The Supreme Court should have been the weakest of the three branches of government. Instead, it is currently the most powerful.

Joe Biden and the Democrats have planned to stack the courts with judges who will interpret the laws the way the Democratic Party sees fit. With the judiciary that powerful and fully under control by the Democratic Party, we'll become a uni-party system more like China.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 9, Natural Rights are Under Attack

The Lincoln Project ad attacking the McCloskeys and Kyle Rittenhous as "white nationalists" can be viewed here. When I saw this ad, I was horrified. John Locke, one of the most prominent classical liberals and attributed thinkers to the founding of American ideas that are imbued into the Declaration of Independence cites the rights of life, liberty, and property as the three basic natural rights that man has. These also have been classically defended as inherent to man's natural rights by the Church as well. This is not some sort of secularist philosophy as asserted by the neo-Evangelicals and neo-Catholics of today's world who do the bidding of a socialist state. The ad also convinced me that this election might be more one of an assessment of ideas as to who we are as Americans. Do we value the natural rights of man or do we value chaos being let loose upon our fellow humans?

The McCloskeys were a couple that have absolutely nothing to do with white nationalists. They are painted this way by the rotten and degenerate ilk who run The Lincoln Project because such degenerate people assume private property is a sign that people are evil. It is not. I remember one homily I heard as a High Anglican in which the deacon proclaimed that money is not evil nor does Scripture state that money is evil. Rather the love of money is evil. That deacon was fairly soft-spoken in person. But on the pulpit he was a roaring lion. I do not know how he did it. The defense of property is not a matter of one's white supremacy. If it was, the degenerate morons who run The Lincoln Project should fork over their assets not to getting Biden elected but rather to helping hungry people be fed.

But the ad is more sinister given the nature that it spreads lies and falsities about both Kyle Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys. For starters, the "peaceful protesters" that came up to the McCloskeys actually barged onto the McCloskeys' lawn, broke down the iron gate that blocked the entrance, and shouted threats of terror to the life of the McCloskeys. The fact that the McCloskeys threatened the barbarians back with guns of their own is irrelevant to the assessment of the moral character of the McCloskeys. One always has the right to defend their personal God-given possessions seeing as God gave those to the McCloskeys, not to the hoard of barbarians. The life of the McCloskeys was reasonably in danger so the McCloskeys had ample recourse to the defense of their life. It is sickening that it is labeled "white supremacy" to defend one's own personal property and life.

Equally sinister is the continued slander of Kyle Rittenhouse. Reliable witness testimony and video footage evidence shows Rittenhouse's life was reasonably in danger. Rittenhouse remarkably only fired at the people who threatened him. He was fired upon first, turned his weapon, shot the man in the head. He was even involved in trying to provide medical aid to that man. It is a killing but not a murder. Murder must be deliberate. Rittenhouse fired back in self-defense. When one fires in self-defense, that regardless of the result of the weapon discharge, it is not murder. It is a self-defensive act. The Lincoln Project made a crucial mistake in their ad in showing Rittenhouse knocked to the ground. That led to the second set of shootings. Again, self-defense. One man even attempted to pry Rittenhouse's weapon away from him.

If we have come to the point in this country where it is a matter of racism or anti-racism when it comes to the defense of one's own life, liberty, and property, then the matter of Trump vs. Biden has become a bigger issue. It is a matter of natural rights or the freedom to be slaughtered by a hoard of barbarians that trounces on every single thing you have. Your freedom, your property, and your life. When it comes to the fundamental values of Americans, we face a decision to uphold to the classical liberal values of life, liberty, and property, or to condemn the defense of those things as a matter of white supremacy. No one explains how it is a matter of white supremacy.

My Endorsement of President Donald Trump for Re-Election - Part 8, Trump is "Bad" for Democracy But That's a Good Thing!

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating over what to have for lunch." -source unknown but oft attributed to Benjamnin Franklin

One political dogma I have often criticized is democracy. Exactly, what is democracy? I do not even think the proponents of democracy know quite well what democracy is. In one breath, they'll say "majoritarian rule" but in the next, they will say the will of the majority to impose its views on the minority. Well the second part is a good thing. Democracy is the will of the majority to impose its views and policies on the minority. Simply put, you cannot consistently claim that democracy is about majoritarian rule while claiming that the majority is prohibited from imposing its views and will on the majority. This is why Murray N. Rothbard rightly critiqued democracy as "a system replete with inner contradictions" (Man, Economy and State with Power and Market, 1279).

"Does the system of democracy permit itself to be voted democratically out of existence? Whichever way the democrat answers, he is caught in an inescapable contradiction." (12879) If the majority can vote to end democracy, then it is a self-terminating system of government. If the majority cannot achieve this, then democracy cannot purport to effectively establishing a government but is merely symbolic. "So if the majority wishes to end the voting process, democracy cannot be preserved regardless of which horn of the dilemma is chosen." (1280 If democracy is about "change" then it must let itself be voted out of existence. If democracy is about majority rule, then it must allow the majority to either elect a dictator or undemocratic policies. If democracy is merely a matter of cooperation, on the other hand, then it must permit the minority to have as much equal ruling power as the majority. The internal contradictions are only extrapolated in democracy.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the Presidency with 46.1% of the nationwide vote compared to Hillary Clinton's 48.2% of the nationwide vote. While this is inherently an undemocratic, non-majoritarian victory, it is impossible to tell who would have come out and voted differently and where and in what states had the election rules been based on a strict majority. Of course, this isn't even in a direct democracy. A direct democracy involves the people voting on policy changes but an indirect democracy involves people voting for others to vote for the policies they want. American politics does not have and never will have a direct democracy because the elected politicians love power too much. That may seem cynical but it is fact. If majoritarian rule ever did enter into this country, you would see a lot of policies changed that the politicians of both parties have stated they want. Voting for a person to carry out policies requires more complicated studies than merely voting in regards to policies. The real culprit against democracy in this country is the personality tests we've turned local, state-wide, and federal elections into. Democracy in America is a mess.

This is why democracy is something worthwhile to consider being nuked. Without democracy, people aren't worried about who is leading them nor voting them out. This is so abundantly and overwhelmingly obvious. Democracy is a system set up for failures. There is a point in which democracy even becomes nothing more than a fragile religion. If Trump is "bad for democracy" or an "assault on American democracy" then that is actually a good thing. The democratic system is filled with contradictions and fallacies. The least concern is an assault on democracy or voting rights. Rather, the strongest concern is the fight for individual liberties. The natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, freedom to associate and peaceably assemble, freedom of the press. It is when these things are taken away that we transpose into collectivism and totalitarianism. If democracy becomes a threat to those freedoms, then democracy must step aside.

Orwell spoke this warning in his novel 1984 in the torture scene. The character Winston is being forced into the collective brain of society. The collective brain of The Party. It is democracy and majoritarian rule when unleashed to fulfill their concepts that can quickly become a threat. Orwell probably never meant that interpretation but as Rothbard has pointed out, the democratic system is rife with contradictions. Democracy is literally a modern day god that is worshiped by the adherents of its religion who cannot see where it will inevitably lead.