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.

Medical Ethics and Vaccine Mandates

Vaccine mandates are nothing new. In fact, they have a very recent history tracing all the way back to the Enlightenment period. This was also the period when vaccinations first arrived as a science. In the history of Russia, the first ever to be vaccinated is believed to be Catherine the Great, who was inoculated against small pox in 1768[1]. The science of vaccination was new at the time and the process was highly dangerous, one had a stronger chance of dying from the inoculation process than one does now. But small pox outbreaks were also terrible. And the Empress Catherine had seen Countess Sheremeteva, whose fiancé, Count Nikita Panin, was her son's mentor. Because of this, Catherine had a great fear of small pox and was willing to do anything. She brought Thomas Dimsdale into her courts whose inoculation procedures were new at the time and had him administer the inoculation to her. She developed a small pox illness which was claimed to have been reduced significantly by the new vaccination method. Loving the new science, she declared as blockheads and wicked in a private letter to her friend Voltaire, any one who refused the treatment[2]. It is unclear if she ever mandated vaccinations though.

At a similar time period, small pox was infecting the Holy Roman Empire at its highest levels of authority. The Empress Maria Theresa became infected with small pox and small pox also claimed the lives of both the wives of the Emperor Joseph II, Isabella of Parma and Maria Josefa. Maria Theresa's daughter Josefa also died from small pox. Voltaire had warned that sixty our of one hundred people were infected with small pox in 1734. Fearing small pox, Maria Theresa began to implement the new biotechnology throughout the Empire, however, people lacked trust in the bureaucratic institutions of the Health Fund. How do you convince people to receive a new medicine when they cannot trust the authorities implementing the medicine? Maria Theresa, much like the Empress Catherine, criticized the peasants who preferred, out of the goodness of their heart, to listen to the wise counsel of God. In her efforts to convince the public, she decided to use orphans as her guinea pigs and mandated that approximately 20-30 orphans throughout the poorhouses in Graz be vaccinated.[3] Today, this would be considered close to a war crime and definitely a violation of children's rights.

In the Duchy of Parma, in the early 1830s, Maria Luigia began the most bureaucratically controlled vaccination campaign which established different incentives and would mete out punishments, such as government aid, refusal to be admitted to hospices, boarding schools, private and public schools. Once again, the process was not necessarily the safest but these had to be done according to the will of the bureaucracy because small pox was "too dangerous".

The inoculation fluid had to be preserved all the year round in the foundling hospice for infants, annexed to the maternity hospital. For fluid we have to intend not only the one preserved in tubes (minimal amount) but the one kept constantly in the hospice with regular grafts from one child to another. The children were the true deposit of the fluid, the small amount preserved in glass tubes was only a reserve in case of failure of engraftment of the vaccinations, thus interrupting the human chain. Today, such a method would certainly be considered unethical and a serious violation of human rights and of children in particular, but for those times was a normal and completely lawful thing.[4]

The process, was not necessarily the most ethical either. And this was not the last time a vaccine mandate would be ordered. We would reach all the way into the early 20th century with the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts. A man named Henning Jacobson would refuse to pay a fine to the State of Massachusetts after being ordered to be inoculated with a small pox vaccine he had received when he was younger. He was a Swedish immigrant and had already received a small pox vaccine at a younger age. He did not want it. His case was taken all the way to Supreme Court where the Court ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts thus establishing a precedent for quite some time that the government has authority over your medical choices. The case was used to justify sterilization. So it was more shocking when the Nuremburg trial of 1947 found the Nazi doctors guilty of medical experimentation on Holocaust victims. The Nuremburg trial essentially reversed the precedents that had been held since the Enlightenment.[6]

And in 1952, Pope Pius XII spoke to a group of medical researchers in a letter titled, "The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment" which further challenged the ethical precedents established by that era of Enlightenment despotism. In it, Pope Pius XII calls into question such a top-down approach. Is a man's duty to the community or does the community exist for man? In the increasingly despotic state produced by the Hobbesian Leviathan, the bureaucratic faceless evil, man's duty is principally for the community. The great postwar trials brought to light a terrifying number of documents testifying to the sacrifice of the individual in the “medical interests of the community.”

25. In the minutes of these trials one finds testimony and reports showing how, with the consent and, at times, even under the formal order of public authority, certain research centers systematically demanded to be furnished with persons from concentration camps for their medical experiments. One finds how they were delivered to such centers, so many men, so many women, so many for one experiment, so many for another. There are reports on the conduct and the results of such experiments, of the subjective and objective symptoms observed during the different phases of the experiments. One cannot read these reports without feeling a profound compassion for the victims, many of whom went to their deaths, and without being frightened by such an aberration of the human mind and heart. But We can also add that those responsible for these atrocious deeds did no more than to reply in the affirmative to the question We have asked and to accept the practical consequences of their affirmation.[7]

But Pope Pius XII corrects this view that was so commonly held before the famous statement of the Nuremburg Code.

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.[8]

And thus, he concludes, that ultimately, in the case of administering medicine to man, the following needs consideration:

38. Without doubt, before giving moral authorization to the use of new methods, one cannot ask that any danger or any risk be excluded. That would exceed human possibilities, paralyze all serious scientific research and very frequently be to the detriment of the patient. In these cases the weighing of the danger must be left to the judgment of the tried and competent doctor. Nevertheless, as Our explanation has shown, there is a degree of danger that morality cannot allow. In doubtful cases, when means already known have failed, it may happen that a new method still insufficiently tried offers, together with very dangerous elements, appreciable chances of success. If the patient gives his consent, the use of the procedure in question is licit. But this way of acting cannot be upheld as a line of conduct in normal cases.[9]

A man must be warned of any potential dangers to himself. We are given numbers, not all of them honest, on the current wave of vaccines. Which ones are ethical, which ones are safe, which ones are effective, etc. Even further, we've truly shown ourselves heirs to the Beast of the Enlightenment Despotisms. And while the science on the Anthony Fauci disease and the science of the Anthony Fauci disease vaccines keeps changing, apparently, the Enlightenment science that vaccines eventually stop the spread of transmission or that herd immunity is only acquired through vaccination, or that all must be vaccinated to stop every illness, has been set in stone. This is the sacred science that cannot change under any circumstance. We have already made the conclusion that the vaccines accomplish this goal so there is no consideration, not even based on current numbers in Israel, that the vaccines might actually be failing to do what our leaders have been insisting they would do. We continue to quarantine "fully vaccinated" people who have been infected or reinfected with the Fauci and yet tell with a straight face to our fellow man that the vaccines will stop the spread of transmission. Do we really believe ourselves any more or are we beginning to set up a masquerade to justify how we have given into such power?

1. mos.ru. (2019, September 21). From Catherine the great to the Red hippo: History of vaccination in Russia / news / Moscow CITY web site. Moscow City Web Site. https://www.mos.ru/en/news/item/62002073/.

2. Foussianes, C. (2021, April 30). Catherine the Great, VACCINE QUEEN. Town & Country. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a35091190/catherine-the-great-vaccine-queen/.

3. Winkler, A. (n.d.). The battle against smallpox. Die Welt der Habsburger. https://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/battle-against-smallpox.

4. Virdis, R. (2019, May 23). The beginning of smallpox vaccination in the Duchy of Parma. Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6776211/#!po=1.00000.

5. Henning Jacobson loses his fight with the board of public health OVER VACCINATION. New England Historical Society. (2021, April 29). https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/henning-jacobson-loses-his-freedom-to-the-board-of-public-health/.

6. The Nuremberg Code. (n.d.). http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/. .pdf

7. The moral limits of medical research and treatment. Papal Encyclicals. (2017, April 25). https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12psych.htm.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

W.H.O. to rename COVID-19 in honor of esteemed immunologist Anthony Fauci

This morning, the W.H.O. announced that it will be renaming COVID-19 in honor of the esteemed immunologist Anthony Fauci. COVID-19, which is called that as an abbreviation of "corona virus disease 2019" because it emerged from Wuhan, China in the year 2019 after the U.S. government released it onto the wet market from the lab in Wuhan, China funded by Fauci's gain of function research, is the disease caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus.

"It just wasn't a really catchy name for a disease. I mean we have bird flu, swine flu, Lou Gehrig's disease, the Spanish flu, etc. We needed a better name for it."

Dr. Tedros said when he was asked for comment on the name change.

The W.H.O. which has honored the work of the esteemed immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose research funds may have indeed funded the origin of the novel corona virus disease in the first place, has made the decision to name the disease instead after him. From here on out, COVID-19 will now be know as "Anthony Fauci disease". He sometimes spells his name with an "x" in it but the spelling for the disease will be kept without the "x".

"I am honored to finally have accomplished something. I have bungled AIDS/HIV for years, I have murdered dogs in experiments that didn't benefit anyone, and now I finally have an accomplishment to tell my grandkids. Your grandfather is a disease! I mean, I have been sick for over a year too as proof by the fact that I wear a mask too! And now it's cemented in history. I am a disease. There is now an Anthony Fauci disease and I am he!"

Anthony Fauci said as he might have smiled, it was difficult to tell since he was wearing a boot stamping on a human face forever on his face.

"I think now that there is a vaccine out there, we will certainly see that Anthony Fauci disease will continue to get worse and worse so it is important everyone get our vaccine so that money can be funneled into our company and face severe restrictions if you don't."

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said leaving Moderna, Johnson&Johnson, and Astrazeneca furious that there was this Pfizer-privilege being granted by the federal government and frantically working to gouge prices and shovel bribes to the State.

The W.H.O. re-emphasized that vaccinated individuals infected with asymptomatic Anthony Fauci disease cannot possibly spread it and continued to heap blame on the unvaccinated who, even if they don't have Anthony Fauci disease, can still spread it. They further reassured that the vaccinated must continue to perpetually fear the unvaccinated. They also reached out to the Pope to pressure the heathen unvaccinated Catholics that they are betraying their own Catholic faith by refusing to reject the infallibly declared Mass of the Ages in favor of the Novus Ordo that they are violating charity by not receiving the vaccine. The Pope will soon declare vaccination against Anthony Fauci disease a sacramental pre-requisite to baptism. Joe Biden continues to administer Holy Eucharist in the Vatican.

CDC to offer new guidelines on how to bury the bodies of the unvaccinated

This afternoon, the CDC has announced guidelines on how to bury the bodies of unvaccinated individuals. These guidelines include socially distancing, wearing a mask, wearing two masks, and maybe even a boot stamping on a human face forever. They also include handling the dead body with rubber gloves.

"The dead body of an unvaccinated individual contains higher levels of the virus than the dead bodies of vaccinated individuals. All bodies of unvaccinated individuals should be wearing at least two masks when they are buried. It's understandable that you might want to kiss them while they rest in their coffins before burial but we would likely see a super spreader if that were to occur. Don't blame me, blame your loved one."

Fauxci said as he put on a second and third mask to hide his ugly face.

Many white privileged American neo-Nazis continue to refuse vaccination claiming things like, "you'll still get COVID even after you get vaccinated!" These claims have been debunked by the people who created the vaccinations and now have massive monetary bargaining deals with the government so to not trust them is insanity. Vaccinations are received to prevent you from dying. The Pope said it was a charitable act because by preventing yourself from dying, you actually prevent everyone from dying. In addition, social distancing needs to be implemented, not just double-masking of your loved one.

"The unvaccinated should be buried six feet apart, not just six feet under."

Rochelle Walensky said.

Many neo-Nazi fascists continue to complain about the rules currently but vaccination definitely ends the spread. You know this because the same people who told you Afghanistan would not fall to a hoard of angry goat-herders told you that it could and we would never lie to you. Fascists have this obsessive idea that the government routinely lies to them.

One girl we asked for comment said, "My father was vaccinated against COVID-19 and he was infected with it and died from it. But had he not been vaccinated, it would have been much worse. Please get vaccinated!"

Anthony Fauxci further insists that the vaccine will prevent the spread of COVID-19. Even people who are infected with COVID-19 after being vaccinated, no matter how sick they are, cannot possibly spread it which is why they are no longer obligated to wear masks and why the fully vaccinated Texas Governor who was recently infected with COVID-19 is now isolating to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

"We have a pandemic of the unvaccinated." Said the loopy President Joe Biden just last month. It is true. The reckless, non-isolating unvaccinated people are spreading it because even if they don't have COVID-19, the fact that they aren't wearing masks shows they are spreading it. Vaccinated people, even if they have COVID-19, will not spread it. 100% of the population needs to be fully vaccinated and it is inevitable that we will see mandates imposed universally as Pfizer and Moderna begin to price gouge. The CDC ensures that there is absolutely no corruption going on there.

Should a monarch mandate vaccines?

*Note: I've read "the science" on both sides of the issue, I am only arguing on an ethical perspective. I have no interest in "science" on this one and any refutation of this argument should be based on the ethics. The fact of the matter is that "the science" is ridiculously based on junk propaganda hailing from both sides of the aisle on "vaccines are bad" to "vaccines end the spread of illnesses". When governmental "scientists" are literally talking about how vaccinated people and unvaccinated people with the same illness have "different levels of virus", we have literally creeped into cuckoo-ville. Either I just slept through all the "asymptomatic" spread alerts from 2020 or somehow the virus decided to "settle" down when an infected person who has been vaccinated ends up with COVID and has symptoms.

The question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines is a multi-faceted ethical argument that is based on the question of freedom and the role of the monarch in preserving freedom and order in society, the question of tyranny, and the question of holding medicine as a bargaining chip for earning freedom. Obviously, there are many things that we do in life that can justifiably end up with us being stripped of our freedoms and having to earn it back. Deliberately infecting someone with an illness is also provably monstrous. However, in the case of an epidemic or a pandemic in which a person can be exposed unknowingly to a disease at a given moment and then unknowingly spread it to another person is of an entirely different merit. No one has any control over nature. Vaccines are generally used to trigger the immune system to responding to a particular disease in order to prepare the immune system for defense against the particular disease they've received vaccination for. But also, likewise, is exposure to the actual illness for which the vaccine is for to have the same effect, obviously. This exposure to the illness builds up the immune response which in turn allows the body to be better equipped to fighting the disease. The theory is that the immune people will then prevent disease transmission. This is called herd immunity which the Encyclopedia Britannica describes as follows:

Herd immunity, also called community immunity, state in which a large proportion of a population is able to repel an infectious disease, thereby limiting the extent to which the disease can spread from person to person. Herd immunity can be conferred through natural immunity, previous exposure to the disease, or vaccination. An entire population does not need to be immune to attain herd immunity. Rather, herd immunity can occur when the population density of persons who are susceptible to infection is sufficiently low so as to minimize the likelihood of an infected individual coming in contact with a susceptible individual.

Note the part I bold. If one is going for herd immunity, natural immunity and previous exposure are both sufficient alternatives to vaccination. Ergo, the question as to whether someone who has been around a certain group of infected people should be mandated to take a vaccine is, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica a "no". This will be elaborated even further when one considers corporate investment in medicines. I believe there is a strong need to be concerned given the socialization of medicine in recent years that we could see corporatist based medical tyranny.

What is freedom? According to H.J.A. Sire,

Freedom consists in the fulfilment of one's nature by the complete exercise of the human powers. Since its purpose is fulfilment, its proper objects are the things that truly fulfil man. In that, freedom may be compared to the commonplace function of eating, as a good and as a right. The good of eating embraces eating the things that we need to live on; it does not extend to an indiscriminate voracity for things that we should not be eating at all. ... [P]atriots rightly rebel against foreign domination; subjects do not rightly rebel against their legitimate king. To be free is to reject what is alien and to live under one's proper law, whether it is a political constitution or the moral law that defines human nature. (Phoenix From the Ashes, 349-350)

Freedom is not a right to excess but a basic need. Human interaction is not a right to excess but also a need. In fact, Solzhenitsyn also indicates that after the isolation that was imposed upon the enemies of the state in the Soviet Gulags that one would more than likely be begging to be put to death instead of putting up with the isolation (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, ch. 11). When God created man, he expressed that it was not good for the man to be alone. When someone disallows you a basic necessity and holds up another thing as a bargaining chip for you to get it back, that is called abuse. They are demanding that you place immediate trust that they will fulfill their word despite the fact that what has been taken away is a basic necessity. When someone refuses to feed you unless they first gain something in return from you, they are withholding your need to eat in order to gain something from you. That is not the behavior of a loving father but the behavior of an abusive father.

Plato describes his ideal ruler in The Republic. It is one who has the spirit of philosophy, a true lover of wisdom, control over his passions, and is reluctant to govern.

Until philosophers are kings, and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils. (Republic, Bk. 5)

The ideal ruler does not rule in order to rule. "The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him" (Bk. 6) The true ruler is not concerned with maintaining power because he has no self-interests. He is a servant by example and a ruler because he leads. This is the best State. "Whereas the State in  which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst." (Bk. 7)

On contrast, the tyrant is rules in order to rule. He emerges from a democratic State which has indulged in the excesses of freedom. Freedom is a need but here, we see freedom being taken as a license to indulge in immorality. The tyrant emerges in order to solve a problem. Thus, the tyrant comes into play during a crisis scenario, claiming he is the one who can fix the problems. After he has fixed the problems though, he still has an appetite for power. He gins up wars against his enemies and instills fears into his citizens. He must convince the public that they always need a leader. But when he runs out of enemies, he must stir up other wars.

And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war. (Bk. 8)

In Book 9, Plato describes the tyrant as someone always indulged in passions. He wants to entertain these passions to an excess but cannot find the funds. So he goes after his own subjects.

One thing clear about this pandemic from the beginning is that our leaders have always seen this as a war. They have routinely seen this issue in terms of martial concepts. Like the tyrant, they look to gin up fear in the populace and create an enemy. There is a convenience especially in a pandemic to gin up fear among the populace. Fear of death, fear of being infected with a disease one could die from, fear of neighbor who could likely infect them. The leaders have said they are the only ones who can resolve the problem, we must look to them without question as a quasi-Messianic figure leading us through darkness. They don't indicate when it will end or even if it is clear that it will end. This progresses toward an infinite loop where they are always creating a crisis. One moment, we could have basic liberties that we take for granted, attending church regularly, seeing our friends' faces, hanging out at the mall, etc. The next minute, all social interaction is cut off, we are locked in our houses, wearing masks, convinced to join our leaders in this war that has no mark on when it will end. Our leaders will give us a goal at one point and then a new one the next. This is the kind of behavior that Plato would more than likely see if he were alive today as tyrannical. The tyrant, in order to increase his power, must always be getting up a war so that he is continuously looked on as a leader.

St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite has the following to say about medical ethics:

[I]n such a time of famine, hunger, and sickness, or some other such calamity, you rich, you merchants, you buyers of wheat and other fruits, and likewise you physicians, for the love of God beware of selling your produce to the poor and needy at an exorbitant price; and you physicians, do not provide medical care for an excessive fee, and do not become bad doctors, as Job says—'But ye are all unjust physicians and healers of diseases'—finding time to be a helper in making a profit. (Christian Morality, Discourse VIII)

And what high price are the physicians of today's world placing us under? "No jab no job"? The day-to-day things you used to be able to do, you cannot do. Buy our medicine and inject it into yourself or you may not even be able to shop for food. But one might say that the government is paying for it. Well the government pays for it with our money which it taxes us for. The vaccine passport system that people are talking about is a license for governmental and major pharmaceutical company abuse. If it keeps going at this trend, we'll end up with a system of permanent corporatism, subject to the whims and research papers of medical companies that are more interested in making a profit for the medical care they offer. A vaccine passport currently expires after six months. Currently, only one booster shot is needful. But flu vaccines are distributed on a seasonal basis. Could we not assume that the COVID vaccine would also be the same? And then the big pharmaceutical companies price gouge and force us to buy their medicine whether directly or through taxation. They become the partners with the government. Is what we see here a wasteland or a monarchy?

But the true philosopher-king does not need to constantly stir up fear in order to keep his authority. He needs not beg his subjects to allow him to rule and continue to rule. He is not insensitive about his person. He governs himself. Unlike the tyrant. So the answer to the question as to whether a monarch should mandate vaccines, I would say, is no. The reason being that such mandates give leeway to tyrannical oppression and corrupt control over medicine, especially by the pharmaceutical companies that have manufactured the vaccine. Further, that control can easily be extended permanently, just by ginning up another crisis. As Plato states of the tyrant hoping to keep his power and prove that the people still need a leader to guide them, he is always looking to create a war. We are seeing an ongoing war against a virus which no one has control over. I emphasize this to stress that no one deliberately causes infection of another. The tyrant has insisted we are all too sick or might be too sick to even be with each other. At this point, one should ask with a clear and sober mind, do we fear a virus or do we fear each other?

Are unvaccinated Catholics obligated to follow the mask mandates?

The short answer is "no". The long answer goes into the question of determining whether the current mandates are even properly laws at this point. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine makes the following point:

"Unjust laws are not properly called laws, as Augustine teaches. Moreover, four conditions are required for a law to be just. 1) On the side of the end, that it is ordained for the common good; for as a king differs from a tyrant, in that the former seeks the common advantage, while the latter seeks his own, so also a just law differs from a tyrannical one. 2) One the side of the agent, that it should be from having authority, for no one can impose a law except upon a subject. 3) On the side of the matter, that it should not forbid virtue, nor command a vice. 4) On the side of form, that a law should be clearly promulgated and constituted in a measure and order due to it, so that a law would preserve that proportion in the distribution of honors and imposition of burdens which subjects have in rank toward the common good." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, Ch. XV)

So we should investigate whether a particular law or mandate from an earthly prince follows this criteria before we subjugate ourselves to it. The recent church closures are obviously an infraction of a just law for they forbid the virtue of receiving the benefit of the sacraments. Catholics are not obligated to follow such laws. Therefore, Catholics everywhere ought to be seeking and pressuring their governments to open the churches or face worldwide counter-revolution. But the recent mask mandates that apply only to unvaccinated individuals have left some people wondering whether these are just laws or fraudulent laws. Are unvaccinated people walking around without masks "cheaters" who are using situational advantage to remove their masks. As stated, the short answer is a definitive "no". Under scrutiny, the current laws have actually created severe ethical and moral dilemmas to begin with which has benefited one side over the other. This of course would be sufficient to render the law inherently unjust. Either the law applies to all or it applies to none. But effectively, what these mandates have done is recreated the leper colonies of old where the unvaccinated are pushed aside and treated as lepers. This is doing nothing more but isolating the unvaccinated and the voiding them of their humanity. Unlike the leper colonies of old though, no one cares enough to visit the unvaccinated.

Underneath argument 1, the first question should be addressed whether this is for the common good. It's very difficult to argue in favor of this because no one can actually see a virus. In fact, Fauci's leaked e-mails show that he holds a very low confidence in masks. He even stated how masks would only serve a symbolic gesture. The "common good" that it's supposed to be used for is to "prevent the spread of COVID-19". That sounds good and all but we see the full revolutionary ideology at play here. It is the idea that "I am God and I control the situation!" The fact of the matter, is that it cannot be for the common good because we are not in control of viruses. Further, masks have been shown to have very unhealthy risks for children. What this entails is that masks are not at all beneficial for the common good. If they prevent the spread of COVID-19 at all, they do more harm than good. Since health is holistic, being concerned for only the spread of one disease is not a justifiable excuse for establishing the common good. The common good is something that all objectively understand to be good and it cannot be established that preventing the spread of a viral infection is a greater good than the other health risks that must be taken in concordance with the ascetical lack of not being able to see another person's face in order to establish a healthy relationship with the other. Thus, masks are not inherently critical to the common good. They fail to meet criteria 1. Even further, masks can only ever serve the benefit of those who are fearful of the spread of COVID-19. The tyrant seeks his own good and the tyrant makes tyrannical laws. If the law only seeks the good of those who are fearful of COVID-19 and ignores the good of others, then the law is inherently tyrannical and thus, unjust.

Argument 2 makes the point that the law must be in a relational context of authority to subject. The problem is that in a democracy, there are always ideological dissidents of the authority who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the one claiming authority. The one claiming authority must rely on the legitimacy he derives from the people. The Biden administration, particularly, insists that its authority is derived from the people. But which people? I didn't vote for the Biden administration. If you voted for Jo Jorgensen, did you vote for Biden? So how could Biden derive his authority from you? If democracy is about the consent of the governed, how does a mere majority make consent? Thus, the context of the authority and subject relationship is broken. There is no objective way to establish legitimacy and if the authority of the government ultimately derives from the people, then by pointing out that you are among the people and did not give consent, you cannot be placed as a subject. Of course, what other things mark legitimate authority? Authority requires legitimacy. For instance, does a governor who insists that infants be left to die have the capability to be entrusted with his state's health policies? Or does such a person lose authority due to a damaged capacity to reason? This may be seen as "begging the question" but the reality is that authority-subject relationship in a democracy itself begs the question!

On matter 3, we have a very serious issue on our hands. The mRNA vaccines out there for one, alter the genetic code. Of course, this is a very serious violation of moral theology as it alters the created order of God by altering the human body itself. A just law must order virtue but this law orders the alteration of the human genome itself. Because of this, the mRNA vaccine can never be said to be ethical. Ethics is not something the modern Leviathan cares for though. By commanding a vaccine that alters the genetic code be taken before you are allowed to remove the mask is to enforce one to violate his moral conscientiousness before being able to be treated like a valued human being. But a just law would order that one be treated like a valued human being regardless. One does not need a genetically altering vaccine in order to be treated as a valued human being. Regardless of what the Leviathan says, we can all be treated like valued human beings without having to subvert our moral conscientiousness. Thus, because the law places ethical violations before valued treatment, Catholics cannot be compelled to be subject to this law. The law is unjust and immoral. Further, many of these vaccines are made using the tissue of cloned aborted fetus cells. The Holy Emperor Constantine was told by a Pagan priest to bathe himself in the blood of children in order to be cured of his leprosy once. When the Emperor went to a Catholic priest, the priest forbade him to do this, baptized him, and this cleansed him from his leprosy. If the Holy Emperor Constantine is an example, we ought to avoid injecting ourselves with vaccines that use fetal cell tissue. But this does not mean we need to sit around and wait before we are able to be treated like valued human beings again. We can therefore remove our masks.

Under argument 4, we can clearly see the law weighs undue burdens upon the unvaccinated forcing them to subvert their moral conscience and, further, has great negative health risks for younger people. Because it imposes undue burdens and creates class groups, the law cannot be reasonably considered a law. It is inherently immoral. One can flippantly state, "must be nice to be in an age group where you won't be strongly harmed by COVID-19" all they want. The fact of the matter is that such a person is actually using "law" in order to benefit themselves. The issues are in fact difficult to navigate but none of the fear of COVID-19 can or should have been ever used to justify lockdowns or universal mask mandates. Further, to place the burden to make decisions regarding morality and health risks on an entire population before they can obtain basic freedoms that a particular class of people behold and to forever shame them is not only egregiously immoral but also unduly tyrannical. When a portion of the population seeks to control another portion of the population, that is an "us vs. them" mentality that is bred into the individual. That is a collectivist mentality that is bred into the individual. You might say that "the government has ordered it! How could this be wrong?" But think of what else governments have ordered. From the Communist State of Stalinist Russia to Hitler's slaughter of the Jews to Roosevelt's imprisonment of Asians to the segregation of colored people from whites. All of these things have been ordered by governments. And the government has been wrong to order these things. In fact, the State, as of this last century, has created a track record of itself being routinely wrong. You may think of these people as "cheaters". Don't do so. They are protesting an inherently unjust law. If you can argue against this, please do so.

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.

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 Leveling is Coming

"[T]he less idea there is an age, the more the age will vacillate between volatile enthusiasm (which creates heroes and geniuses of the moment) and indolence, and leveling becomes all the more a decadent urge, a sensate stimulation that excites momentarily and only makes matters worse, rescue more difficult, and the probability of destruction greater. ... Now everything is arranged so that rabble-barbarism can have its day. ... [T]he public keeps a dog for its amusement. This dog is the contemptible part of the literary world. If a superior person shows up, perhaps even a man of distinction, the dog is goaded to attack him and the witty fun begins. If it were really witty, really elevating, or even something noble conceived in dspair, it would be wrong and the public would cease to be base. But now everything is arranged. The nasty dog tears at his coattails, indulges in all sorts of rough tricks⁠—until the public is tired of it and says: That is enough now." Søren Kierkegaard, Pap. VII B 123 n.d., 1845-46

The cure is quickly becoming worse than the disease at the moment. It may already have been that for the moment. The latest plot by our leaders is to pay off those who have been crushed by the State with money from other people. This is the current leveling. Sure, it is income equality. We shall be secure financially, but what has been done is leading us to greater destruction. I won't say too much on this topic for Kierkegaard has put into writing what I have been unable to put into words. The State has taken no responsibility. Will the State accept responsibility? No, it will assert the cat did it. The responsibility therefore is on the cat to build up what the State has destroyed. This is flat-out evil, it is sinister. Whether it's in "combatting racism" or in providing stimulus checks, it seems the State has decided to manufacture this fictional entity of the public to promote their benefit for when they speak of "common good" it seems odd that those benefitting appear to only be members of the State and their allies in society. At any rate, to destroy livelihoods is inexcusable terrorism. That the State is at fault for that is clear for no virus or beast ever ordered the crushing of livelihoods. But the State's solution is to destroy the lives of more taxpayers just so it can promote the "welfare of the nation". It will print more money, pay more checks to its citizens, hike tax rates. The train we are on is veering to a wall that will destroy us. It must be rammed off the tracks somehow. For destruction, the State has embraced the idea that more destruction is necessary to repair the damages. We are not looking at a mere government here. We are looking at something far more comparable to that beast of the sea from Revelation. More dupes will generate the foolish propaganda that taxation continues to be necessary. More dupes will continue to inject the idea we need to promote more government welfare to care for our brothers. More dupes will continue to carry out this lie. What is happening right now is the State has been caught in the action of its wrongfulness. It can't hide it any more. So it will continue to lie and cheat to cover up its ass.

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

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.

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.